Wikipedia:Teahouse

Stormy clouds, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

hello!what does this mean? This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it.

hello!what does this mean? This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it Lawen Azad (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Stub

Please, see if this page meets a stub template Winning Jah, i created it to honor a musician, am his fanMICHEAL WILSON EDGAR (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

How to get people looking at Lenín Moreno‎? (this is high priority as probably will be on front page soon)

Lenín Moreno‎ is leading the presidential elections in Ecuador, but I looked at his article tonight and it's terrible. I removed some of the worst POV language but it has only a couple of lines on the election. This article is quite likely to be on the front page soon, what's the best way to attract attention for other editors (hopefully more knowledgeable about Ecuador) to improve it? WikiProject Ecuador is a ghost town... NPalgan2 (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

dead link

How to mark dead cites?

SageWater (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

SageWater - you can use the dead link template (Template:Dead link) DarjeelingTea (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi SageWater you can also try to find an archive version of the website as explained in WP:DEADREF. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

I have created a site for Xref Limited twice, but it gets deleted as apparently it breached the below. I don't see it as promotional at all so I am confused as to how I can get it to stay on Wikipedia?

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.202.7.169.74 (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you post and then answer your own question? You might want to familiarize yourself more with the formatting in the Teahouse. Happy editing and thanks for stopping by. Best Regards,

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  03:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

202.7.169.74 / MarieFougner - some general comments: it appears there are many good WP:RS for Xref limited but you've not chosen to use them and have largely relied on the company's own website as well as non-RS sources. Also, you didn't properly capitalize "Limited" in the page's title. Also, some sections read like a company fact sheet or press release boilerplate instead of a WP:NPOV encylcopedia article, to wit:

• Lee-Martin Seymour had worked in in the HR and recruitment sector for 17 years when he and Tim Griffiths, an MBA-qualified technologist, recognised the need for a technology-based solution to overcome the challenges of traditional, phone-based candidate reference checking.
• In January 2015, Xref recognised the opportunity to expand internationally
• to accelerate global sales growth, facilitate product integrations, drive software development and provide working capital

Also, based on your IP address, and a LinkedIn profile that exists under the same username you used to create the article, I'm assuming you're affiliated with Xref. You may want to read WP:COI. One possible next step would be to post a notice to Paid Editor Help. Of course, please don't hesitate to ping me if I can be of any assistance. Best of luck! DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Authority Control - how to do it?

I've read the authority control directions about two-dozen times and I still don't understand how to apply authority control to an article. Specifically, I'm trying to do it to America's 60 Families (a book). Can anyone provide some direction? DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Should we make life noggin?

As you can see, We have pretty much all the science shows in here, but unfortunately, we still have a sort-of famous show, it's called Life Noggin, so, anybody gonna make that page? Thanks124quann (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, if you can prove notability, create it yourself! Or add it to the articles for creations lists.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 23:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings 124quann, I think you came to the right place for your question. L3X1 is absolutely correct in saying that you have to provide references from reputable sources to 'prove' that your topic is notable enough to put in the encyclopedia. It is pretty difficult (but not impossible) to find someone else to write an article for you. One important thing you should know is that if you have a close connection or are involved with the organization you want to write about, this called a conflict of interest. Wikipedia (other editors) pretty much frowns (really a scowl) upon those who are trying to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. I noticed that you said, "we have a sort-of famous show...". The 'we' means you. You really can't create that page since it is pretty difficult to prove you are not neutral in writing on such a topic. Sorry about the bad news. Please stay and do more editing, though. Best Regards,

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  01:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

archive numbers don't show up, why?

I was looking at Talk:New Caledonia, and I noticed the archive box didn't list the archive numbers. How do I fix this? The Verified Cactus 100% 20:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi The Verified Cactus. I have added |auto=yes as documented at Template:Archive box#Automatic links. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 20:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

How do I submit a request to delete an article?

Vista Grove, Georgia is not a community. The article says it is a community extending from Shallowford Road to Toco Hills and to Northlake Mall (Atlanta). Those with an understanding of DeKalb County, Georgia will quickly recognize that the article does not correctly identify a community. There is nothing to reduce to a stub because there is no community by that name, or any other, within the geography described. I've expanded this on the talk page.

In full discloser, in the 1960s my grandfather developed the Vista Grove Plaza shopping center from which the article takes its name. My family has lived in Oak Grove since the 1820s, I am the current president of the Tucker Historical Society, and I was an advocate for the incorporation of the neighboring community Tucker, Georgia. I do not live within the city limits of Tucker nor within the claimed footprint of the Vista Grove article.

How do I submit for this article to be reviewed for deletion? It seems a complex process. Matthew R. Lee 18:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewrlee (talk • contribs)

Hi, Template:Matthewrlee, and welcome! There are three avenues for deletion: speedy deletion, PROD (proposed-deletion), and AfD (articles for deletion). Speedy deletion is only for use in a few circumstances, which I've linked. Proposed deletion is for articles where the deletion would be uncontroversial; anyone can remove the tag, and that makes it ineligible for PROD again. Then there's Articles for deletion, which you can list there if you believe that the article should be deleted, and it either doesn't meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion, or someone removed the proposed deletion tag. In that case, the article would remain listed there for at least 7 days, and the community would discuss whether the article should remain.

Sorry if that was a bit confusing, I know it seemed super complicated when I first got here! But it's really your call to determine which one you should use. If you have further questions, you can ask me here, or on my talk page. Thank you! MereTechnicality ⚙ 19:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

About a page in Wiki

Hi, I'm Vinod pursuing B.tech CSE. I've been working on creating my own page. I don't want it to be too formal or too casual, can you give me some opinion on how the page should be and what are the things needed to be included to make the page look good? Thanks. Vinod M (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Vinod, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'd say to have a look at our manual of style for how pages should be laid out and written. Please let me know if you have other questions. Thanks! MereTechnicality ⚙ 16:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Vinod M, and welcome to the Teahouse. The manual of style that MereTechnicality refers to is more relevant to articles than to user pages: please see WP:USERPAGE for information about what you may put on your user page; and the WP:User page design center for advice and suggestions on how to format it. Please note that Wikipedia is not social media, or a web host: your user page should be mostly about you as a Wikipedia editor. At present, as far as I can see, you have nothing on it about your current or intended Wikipedia activities. That's fine for now - a limited amount of information about your life outside Wikipedia is acceptable. But if you're intending to work up a personal home page for yourself that is not mostly about what you do on Wikipedia, then please find another site for it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I thought Vinod was talking about making an article. Yes, that's right, you should read WP:USERPAGE for how to make and what to put on userpages. Sorry! MereTechnicality ⚙ 17:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Celina González

I tried to upload an image with deceased person fair use. The file upload process has so much explanation, I left the process. --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Parker. Unfortunately, assuming this is the same person, there appears to be an image already available on commons. See File:RADEUNDA LIMA,MARIBLANCA ARMENTEROS,CELINA GONZALES.jpg. The way the rules work, if any free use image is available, no matter the quality, then fair-use is usually a no go. But you should check out Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial, to see if there may be other free use images available that might not yet have been added to the project. TimothyJosephWood 17:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Marvellous Spider-Man. You can modify the image File:RADEUNDA LIMA,MARIBLANCA ARMENTEROS,CELINA GONZALES.jpg by cropping out Lima and Armanteros. Download the image to a graphics program, and then upload the croppped image, citing the original image as the source of your new derivative image. This is completely legitimate under the terms of the Creative Commons license. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

the article has been declined. need help in editing

Hello, good evening! My name is Christina and for the last week (since Monday,13th of February till yesterday, Saturday the 19th) I've been studying the "rules of engagement" of publishing articles on Wikipedia. Today, finally, after long reserach I became brave enough to publish it but - it looks like I failed everything because within couple of minutes the article was declined. So, here I am asking for help - professional editing that will satisfy all the rules and standards of Wikipedia for the benefit of everyone alive))) Thank you very much for understanding! regards, Christina Christinapeskowa (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Christinapeskowa, and welcome to the Teahouse! Thanks for contributing an article! Looking at it (Draft:Riccardo Arthur de Wet), it was declined because the subject didn't meet our notability guidelines for people. Try reading WP:BIO for more information on this. Please let me know if you have any more questions! MereTechnicality ⚙ 16:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Re-ping Christinapeskowa, since the first ping didn't quite go through. TimothyJosephWood 17:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Christinapeskowa, if you go to the page where you have your article submitted and click on the 'Talk' tab at the top of the page, you will be taken to a page that will help you find references to establish the notability of your subject. If you can't find references with the tool I installed on the talk page, then, unfortunately your topic might not appropriate for Wikipedia. Don't be discouraged! We always need new editors to create content and it looks you could help out a lot. Best Regards,

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Doing a page right

Hi! I wrote a page about a guy who runs these big conferences. He keeps being interviewed and mentioned in news stories, but there wasn't a place online that I could find that gathered info about him. With a conference coming up that I'm attending (thousands of people expected) and big companies there, I tried to create a page. I got a response back that it read more like an ad, which was not my intention. So I took out anything that sounded complimentary and resubmitted it. Is that right? Thanks Jaylfs (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jaylfs. One of the big things that folks who are new to Wikipedia have to get used to is how to stop writing like a writer and start writing like an encyclopedia, which can be really hard, since likely most everything you've ever read has been written by a writer, writing like a writer, with either a strong personal point of view or an implicit conflict of interest. The current draft seems fairly neutral, but I would encourage you to check out Help:Referencing for beginners, since your reference formatting is a bit...wrong. TimothyJosephWood 16:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Apparently they decided that the news sources I included weren't adequate because there were mentions in the articles, but the articles weren't devoted centrally to the topic.Jaylfs (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Jaylfs: It's likely that "adequate" isn't exactly the problem. Lots of sources are useful for telling whether something is true, but many sources don't "count" toward notability in the Wikipedia sense. On Wikipedia, and for the purposes of notability, sources that are trivial mentions, non-independent, or primary don't help establish whether a person deserves their own article, even though they may still be useful for information, once it's established that an article is deserved. TimothyJosephWood 21:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User name

How can I change my username Sarabanabrar (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sarabanabrar. Since you have very few edits under this account, and thus little history to be preserved through renaming, the easiest solution to your problem is simply to register another account under a username you would like to use going forward, and abandon the current account. There is usually no reason to hide or move the contributions of a very new account, since inactive accounts with very few edits are rarely if ever seen by anyone. TimothyJosephWood 15:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Accessible References, Citations, and Mixed Styles

• note: There are a LOT of awesome pages about styles of citations and I know how where to find them (they are a bit overwhelming sometimes), so I am looking recommendations / opinions / advice =)

1. When citing passages out of the same reference... is it best to use footnotes to avoid lots of (Ref 2017) in-line... and can you provide a direct quote in those footnotes? (I have noticed it on a couple of articles)
2. Also, What are some best practices to keep code uncluttered when using full inline references? (ex. is it possible to place the full reference elsewhere, and then just use the REF="id" in the text?)
3. EDIT: almost forgot, where can I find some really awesome Open Access resources?

Popcrate (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Popcrate. A lot to unpack here but we'll give it a go. You are correct that there are many ways to cite references, but probably the two main ones are to either use full inline citations using <ref>FULL REFERENCE HERE</ref> or to use a bibliography, where the full citation is given at the bottom of the article, and inline references are given in a format such as <ref>Wood. (2000) p. 100.</ref>. I prefer the first method, as it's generally easier to maintain over the long term, and overall more popular, at least recently, which means that most pages with a bibliography end up eventually using both styles, which can be confusing for readers, and is actually disqualifying for things like good article nominations.

Multiple inline citations for the same reference can be given using ref names, so instead of typing:

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been."<ref>The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. ''Epic Records''.</ref> They proceeded to engage in a fiddle playing contest which Johnny won.<ref>The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. ''Epic Records''.</ref> This was later the subject of a popular song by The Charlie Daniels Band.<ref>The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. ''Epic Records''.</ref>

Which gives you this, with the references repeated in full each time:

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been." They proceeded to engage in a fiddle playing contest which Johnny won. This was later the subject of a popular song by The Charlie Daniels Band.

References

You instead name the reference, and repeat only the name. So you instead type this:

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been."<ref name="Daniels"> The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. ''Epic Records''.</ref> They proceeded to engage in a fiddle playing contest which Johnny won.<ref name="Daniels/> This was later the subject of a popular song by The Charlie Daniels Band.<ref name="Daniels/>

Which gives you this, where it just repeats the references to the same citation each time.

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been." They proceeded to engage in a fiddle playing contest which Johnny won. This was later the subject of a popular song by The Charlie Daniels Band.

References

If you are referencing multiple pages in the same sources using this method, I prefer to use the reference page template, {{rp|112}}, which looks like this, and allows you to specify page number each time you use the reference inline.

Supplying quotes in references can also be done multiple ways. If it is a simple situation where you are supplying a single quote from a single reference for a single inline citation, all the variations of Template:Cite include a quote = parameter, which allows you to include a quote along with the inline citation. If however, you need to include multiple quotes from the same source which only apply to particular parts of the article, then you can use the extended footnote template, {{efn|INSERT FOOTNOTE HERE}} which will render at the bottom of a page just like references, but should go in a notes or a footnotes section using {{notelist}}. For an example of this you can check out the article on the Baltimore railroad strike of 1877, where I used all these techniques throughout the article.

And with that, I'll defer the open access resource question to another host, since this is already entirely too long of a response. TimothyJosephWood 13:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely Amazing Response!! I read all of it, and checked out the Baltimore railroad strike, Great use of the page reference <- that was exactly what I was looking for! Internets ++ 100 for you! <3 Here's a cookie (the good kind of cookie!) Popcrate (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

As to the open access issue, one page that might help is Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources (WP:FENS), which is my attempt to gather in one place all the free newspaper resources I found when writing articles that were truly useful – the key is that the criteria for inclusion there is not just that they're free, but text-searchable. There are a gazillion other "free" newspaper databases, but you can't search for a term or phrase, so they're not much use unless you already know what page of what issue of what newspaper. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the newspaper sources! I like the text search :) Popcrate (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• No problem Popcrate. I suppose I would add that extensive use of ref names can be...convoluted, so it's best to choose names that are easily remembered and duplicated. Any error in the mentions of the name at all will result in a big nasty error. So don't choose a name like Daniels-Firstref_4487-07Jan_123456, (I'm not joking, people do this). They have to be unique too, so don't choose anything overly generic, like news. The names are also case sensitive, so it's best to either always capitalize the first word, or never capitalize anything. Finally, the "original" reference has to always stay somewhere in the article, which seems easy, but over the course of years is also easy to muck up, and you will eventually find yourself looking through a few dozen revisions of an article trying to find where the original was accidentally removed. But as complicated as that sounds, it's pretty easy to get the hang of, and is absolutely essential when an article relies heavily on a few really good books. TimothyJosephWood 14:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

good tips! Now here's some food for thought (this is pretty much rhetorical, so you don't need to answer it): Imagine how useful it would be if, when citing specific sections of books/PDFs, you could create a link that would send you directly to that page, and highlight the section. not only would it allow you to check the reference accuracy more easily, but if somebody is interested in the subject, they could be taken quickly to relevant material, and continue reading about it....

Once again, Thanks for all the help today!! I'm going to go drink some tea in your honor Popcrate (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Popcrate i'm a newbie, not a host, but I'll add my two cents. If you have access to medline via ovid, it is possible to search for only open access articles. Second, while it isn't a book or pdf, I've found that there are lots of great videos in which I'd like to offer people the opportunity to know that there is an interesting section starting 40 minutes into the video. To do that, you cite the URLwhateverItIs and then add &t=2400s that is, clicking on URLwhateverItIs&t=2400s

starts the video at 2400 seconds (40 minutesm if I've done the math right) into the video. I think/hope I just explained that correctly. like I wrote, I'm a newbie. DennisPietras (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Popcrate With regard to open access sources, I'll point you to Wikipedia's Free resources article. It includes a variety of sources. I have also found Google's Advanced Book Search to be very useful. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

uploading photograph

How can I upload a photograph to a piece I originated? Janbridget (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have done it!Janbridget (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Janbridget: unless you took this photo in c. 1914, it did not originate with you. Evidence of public domain status needs to be provided every time, not just upon request. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Why are things so complicated? I do not know who took the photograph originally. It was sent to me by a descendant of William John Sutton's wife, Helen Annie Fox, for use in a book I am writing about William John. Could you please tell me (in simple terms) what I need to do?Janbridget (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I have just realised I actually have the original photograph - it was sent me by Basil Fox, descendant of Annie Fox. Now what do I do please?Janbridget (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I have also just found the name of the person who took the photograph: John Savannah (1868-1925).Janbridget (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Janbridget, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, there isn't an easy answer to your question. The issue is that copyright law is a very difficult subject matter. Wikipedia is very strict in ensuring compliance with copyright (especially US copyright law), and therefore, unless you can prove that the content is in the public domain, falls within the very restrictive guidelines for use of non-free content, or the owner of the copyright to the content (in your case, most likely the person who took the image) has donated the content for use on Wikipedia, there is nothing to be done. Perhaps you may find some guidance to your questions at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 15:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe I have sorted it now. The photograph was taken by the photographer John Savannah who died in 1925. It was taken in Victoria, B.C. Under Canadian copyright law this is therefore in the public domain.Janbridget (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to say thank you.Janbridget (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

edit 11

why cant my edits be saved.. and how do i send wiki love? my friend told me about wikilove. pls disscuss fast and let me know.. thanx, Jaloipol.. and pls visit my userpage and the other page of mine.. and support my campaign Jaloipolcool (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

hey jaloipol, i support ur campaign and i hop others will too. i have sent u a wikilove. just click the heart button on top of the user page and click ok. hope this is useful regds, Jordanben..

Cool Jordan 09:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I just wanted to let you know that writing an article is not usually referred to as 'supporting your campaign'. Articles on Wikipedia are not meant to promotional or for recruiting others to your cause. Seriously, encyclopedias are supposed to just stick to the (sometimes borring) facts. But please stick around and add new, referenced information on topics of your interest. Best Regards,

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  01:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Creating a new blank article.

I am relatively inexperienced. I am editing an old article. I want to take a portion of that article, and remove it to a new article, where I guess it might be a 'stub'. How do I do this? Bfant (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Bfant, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'd recommend reading the page over at WP:SPLIT for moving portions of articles to new pages. If you have other questions, feel free to ask me here or at my talk page. Thank you! MereTechnicality ⚙ 22:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome Bfant! I see our user names resemble each other, perhaps you are a distant relative-editor. I just wanted to let you know that I split articles all the time without much fanfare. How much experience do you have in article creation at this time? A split can be tricky but worth the effort. Why do you want to split the article? Best Regards,

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  01:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

my article keeps getting rejected

hello, my aricle "Josefina Howard" keeps getting rejected because they say that the person is not notable enough. there are hundreds of newspaper articles in google and i already cited 3. This person was literally responsible for bringing good Mexican food to the united statesAhoward524 (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ahoward524. Your article has three references but two of them are pretty much worthless for establishing notability. The first reference is a reprint of one of her recipes and mentions her only briefly. The third reference is an article about Martha Stewart that mentions Josefina Howard only in passing. That third reference is used to support the statement that her book is rare and collectible but that article says nothing about the book being rare.

Your second reference is pretty good because it is a detailed review of her book in the New York Times and includes some useful biographical information such as her place of birth, marriage and various places she lived. But you have not included these interesting biographical details in your draft article.

Since you say that there are hundreds of newspaper articles about her, I recommend that you delete the first and third references and find four or five new references of the quality of the second reference. Do not make unfounded assertions such as "literally responsible for bringing good Mexican food to the United States" since there has been excellent Mexican food widely served in the U. S. ever since the end of the Mexican American war in 1848.

Think of your draft article as a summary of what a wide range of reliable sources say about her and as a biography telling the whole story of her life. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ahoward524, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think if you add just a little more detail about her from the newspaper sources, that should be enough, especially about why her culinary contributions are so recognized. One thing I haven't found from the sources you've provided in the article so far is something supporting the statement Josefina Howard was one of the first Mexican fine dinning pioneers in the United States. If you can find a source that supports that kind of broad statement about her career, that goes a long way toward supporting Howard's notability. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Convenience link for others who want to weigh in: Draft:Josefina Howard I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Please remember, Ahoward524, that Wikipedia isn't interested - at all - in what you know, or what I know. It is only interested in information which is published in reliable sources; and preferably in sources unconnected with the subject of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

hey ahoward524,

i hava also tried submitting 3 articles , But all of them got rejected.. Maybe you needed to improve on them. Jaloipolcool (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Uploading an image

Hi, I am creating a new page and have found an image off the internet that I think explains my concept quite well and would therefore like to use it. However, I do not own the image. Can I still use it if I credit where the image came from. I have had a look on the FAQs but am still unsure.

Thanks

JIvory96 (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JIvory96, and welcome to the Teahouse. Most likely not. Most images you would find on the internet are not okay. The three exceptions to this rule are: a) images in the public domain (rare, and does not mean somebody released it on the internet); b) images under an acceptable free license (also rare, and requires familiarity with such licenses), and c) fair use (extremely limited use on Wikipedia). You can read more about images here: Wikipedia:Uploading images#Determine copyright status – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

First time

what kind of article can i write? Denniserribal (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Denniserribal, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are no restrictions on what kind of article, as long as you comply with Wikipedia's policies. However, I would strongly suggest building some experience first by editing existing articles to improve them, before attempting a new article - it might seem like the obvious thing to do, but creating a new article from scratch is one of the more difficult tasks at Wikipedia. Find a topic area that interests you, and where you have good access to reference materials, and build from there. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with categories

Hi! I need some help with categories. I've understanded that for add categories to a page I need to place the template of the refering project (it's that so or I'm thinking wrong?) So, there is a page where all the templates are toghether? Thanks. Justmeonhere (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Justmeonhere. Some templates automatically place categories when added to a page, but that is not the chief way categories are added to a page. Categories are added by placing this markup (typically at the very bottom of the page, after all other content):

[[Category:Name of 1st category]]
[[Category:Name of 2nd category]]
[[Category:Name of 3rd category]]
[[Category:Etc.]]

You should also know about sorting. The name the page you add a category to will be sorted by default by its first letter. We don't always want this to happen. For example, articles on people are usually titled first name then last name, but are usually properly sorted in categories by the last name. You can change the sorting by "piping" (this is a pipe "|") the category to something other than its direct name. For example:

[[Category:Nobel laureates in Physics|Einstein, Albert]]

However, for many pages, you want all the categories to sort in the same way. For this, you can use the template {{DEFAULTSORT}}, which added once, sorts all the categories below it, without needing to pipe each one, viz:

{{DEFAULTSORT:Einstein, Albert}}
[[Category:Name of 1st category]]
[[Category:Name of 2nd category]]
[[Category:Name of 3rd category]]
[[Category:Etc.]]

For more information, please see Wikipedia:Categorization, Help:Category, Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization and Wikipedia:Categorization dos and don'ts. Best regards Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Justmeonhere, welcome to the Teahouse. Categories can be added directly by placing [[Category:...]] on the page you want to add (see more at Help:Category#Putting pages in categories), or indirectly by placing a template which adds a category. There are thousands of templates which add categories for various purposes and there is no common list with all of them, but some of the purposes have partial lists. Which category do you want added to which page? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@ PrimeHunter I hadn't nothing particular in mind. I wanted only to know something more on categories in general. Many thanks to you and Fuhghettaboutit for the answers! :) Justmeonhere (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Anytime Justmeonhere.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

why my wikipedia page does't appear in google seach?

I edited a wikipedia page 2 week ago and it still doesn t appear on google seach ,do you know what is the problem?

thank you,paola — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolamont (talk • contribs) 12:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Paolamont. New articles aren't indexed by search engines until they have been reviewed by a volunteer from the New Pages Patrol or persisted for 30 days. TimothyJosephWood 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Paolamont: Your account is only one week old and created Roberta Tirrito 11 February. It's currently the third result for me in a Google search on the name, but probably only because an editor patrolled it after your post. If you refer to a page you edited before creating the account then which page is it? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

How can I get my article approved using a picture of the subject whose copyright I am unsure of?

The article was initially rejected as the picture of the subject of the article (my grandfather, now deceased) was a copy of a portrait by an artist (my great grandfather, now deceased), and I do not what the copyright is on that. My family owns the picture, do we hold the copyright?

I then let too much time pass and the submission had been deleted or something like that. I tried re-submitting the article with another picture of the subject, this time taken from a published source that could reference. I have not had any luck.

I have asked for clarification from 'editors' who approve my article but I really do not understand the advice they are giving. It seems they always refer to another set of abstract rules and I cannot get a straight answer. I have been trying to get this small article on wikipedia for over a year. Can somebody guide me to a successful conclusion? Benito Cartero (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Benito Cartero, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't tell whether your (draft) article has been deleted before, but I do find it here: Draft:Harold Burnell Carter. If this is the article you're referring to, it still exists. As to the concerns expressed by the reviewing editor, it boils down to this: everything you add to any article must be verifiable, by adding a proper citing independent, third party, reliable sources. The reviewing editor, in fact, even added indications of where s/he thinks a reference to a secondary, reliable source is required. So, for example, the fact (?) that Harold Burnell Carter has received the "Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1960)" has to be proven/verified by refering to a source.
Finally, given your relationship to the subject of the draft article, please also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Hope this helps.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 12:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much Talk2Chun. Your advice is helpful and appreciated. The 'citation needed' bits I can hopefully clear up by referring to the bibliography in the article, is that right?

The key barrier to publication seems to refer to the picture that I wanted to upload. See this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?wpDestFile=Portrait_of_Harold_Burnell_Carter_by_Norman_Sinclair_Carter.jpg

I have since tried to use another picture from a verifiable source but I don't seem to have cracked it. How can I swap the picture that has been rejected with the new picture and then resubmit for approval? Benito Cartero (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The lack of an image isn't what is preventing your draft from being accepted, Benito Cartero. Articles don't need to have images to be accepted. You need to resolve the issues mentioned in the message at the top of the page in order to have the draft accepted, and I would worry about those before trying to replace the image. Talk2chun, the deletion log for the draft is here. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Creating my user page

Can I create my user page? Vladi 11:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimirrizov20 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Vladimirrizov20. Sure you can! Click on your name in the top right of the screen. From there, it'll take you to make your page. Feel free to ask me if you have any more questions! MereTechnicality ⚙ 16:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Though it seems you already have made it. MereTechnicality ⚙ 16:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The history of User:Vladimirrizov20 shows that you created it on 10 January 2017‎, Vladimirrizov20. What you do need to do is fix your signature. Do you have the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box ticked in the signature section of your preferences? If so, you need to untick it. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

IMDb reliability?

I'm asking whether IMDb is a reliable source, not for movie casts however, but for finding out the birthplaces of people. Depthburg (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Depthburg. You can take a look at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb to see when it's appropriate and when it's not. The inappropriate uses section reads "Any potentially contentious material about living persons (BLPs)", which could apply to what you were wondering about. It's probably better to find a better source than IMDb. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 15:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Depthburg (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

How do I move pages without the move option?

I was trying to move OS X on tagalog wikipedia (https://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X) to a new page, macOS, but there is no option. Why isn't the move option appearing and how do I move it without the option? Thank you. Itsquietuptown (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Itsquietuptown. We only provide advice about editing the English language Wikipedia here at the Teahouse and have no expertise regarding the Tagalog version which is administered separately . I suggest asking at a help desk at Tagalog Wikipedia. It may be that you are not yet autoconfirmed on that Wikipedia. You may possibly need more time and more edits to move articles there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen

Itsquietuptown (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Search Results on a New Article

Hello, I posted a new article a few days ago called the Battle of Rejaf, which has since been properly reviewed, added to wiki-projects, and categorized. However, in a simple google search for "Battle of Rejaf", the article is not even in the search results. An article I made weeks ago, however, the Battle of Gawakuke, became the top search result the day after it was published. Could someone explain why this is happening?

Thanks, Washoe the Wise (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Washoe the Wise. Due to changes made a few months ago, new articles are not indexed for a Google search until they are reviewed by a New pages patroller, or are over 30 days old. There is a big backlog at New pages patrol. It seems that one article has been patrolled but the other hasn't yet been. If you achieve the Autopatrolled user right, your articles will all be indexed by Google promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Issue

Hello guys Can I know how can I completely Make a article in wikipedia and in how much time ?? I'm really pissed off of the page issue Guyss can you look at the Jai Prithvi Bahadur Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by SawOnGam (talk • contribs) 04:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi SawOnGam! I'm sorry to hear you're having a diffricult time -- let's see if I can point you toward some useful resources. First, consider going on the Wikipedia Adventure. It's a fun tutorial that can get you started on editing. Second, see WP:FIRSTARTICLE to learn about creating a brand new article from scratch. Finally, I'm not really sure what the problem you have with Jai Prithvi Bahadur Singh . Could you tell me a bit more about that issue? Thanks! —Non-Dropframe _talk 05:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello SawOnGam and welcome to Wikipedia! I looked at Jai Prithvi Bahadur Singh as requested, and found many more issues than just the orphan problem. I added some tags to the page which may help you improve the article. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

History of deleted article

Hello. Is there a way to still access the old history of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Science_and_the_Bible? I was unable to, but remember being able to access the history of some deleted articles before (there may be different delete levels perhaps)? Thanks for your time. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I do have a third-party archive revision, the question was really about the history. PaleoNeonate (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, PaleoNeonate and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume you are after the article itself, not the deletion discussion because that is still there. The article has been deleted and is not available, although it is possible to have it restored to your user space - see Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I was looking more for the edit history, rather than the deletion log or the article itself. But it was also a more general question about the access to the edit-history for deleted articles, which appears to sometimes be available, and sometimes not. Maybe I could try VPT, or rereading on the deletion procedures, for more information about this in the future. If userfication permits to also restore the history, that would be a nice feature too. When reading on usification, I had the erroneous impression that it was to restore an article that didn't pass reviews to the original author's userspace, as an alternative to deletion (and in this case I was not involved with this article before). Thank you very much. PaleoNeonate (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, I'm pretty sure that when an article is deleted, its history is deleted with it. I guess that the history is still visible to admins, as the article is, but I'm not sure. I suspect that your "sometimes" is about articles where the outcome of deletion it to convert to a redirect. In that case, the article is not deleted but edited to contain the redirect - unless an admin specifically deletes part of the edit history, it will still remain. --ColinFine (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears that those I could access had indeed been moved or "courtesy blanked" rather than deleted. Thanks for your help. PaleoNeonate (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

two questions regarding (1. Offline Work ) and (2. Article Assessment )

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am getting lost among the infinite pages of templates, categories, banners, assessments etc... and I'm always sure what is up-to-date or not. So here are the questions

1. What are your favorite tools for Offline Work (taking notes with the intention of putting it on wikipedia later)? (examples. text editor with wiki markup... your own wiki... a word processor and then you do wiki markup later... etc.)
2. Are there any API's or something similar to lookup fun stuff like: article assessments, or things like "this article needs references/ citations".
3. BONUS: Do things like article assessment and "page issues" get saved into wikidata ? Or is that just infobox stuff?

Thanks TeaHouse!, Popcrate (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Popcrate, and welcome! I'll answer your questions to the best of my ability.

1. I'd just say make a local copy of WP:MARKUP, and edit in Notepad++ (personal recommendation, other programs do exist)

2. There aren't APIs per se; for those two examples specifically, visit WP:ASSESS and WP:WikiProject Unreferenced articles.

3. I'm honestly not sure! Sorry about that.

If you have more questions, you can ask them by commenting either here (please let me know you did so by placing {{Ping|MereTechnicality}} on the page) or on my talk page. Thank you! MereTechnicality ⚙ 02:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What dating styles does WP allow?

BC/BCE is mostly used in WP articles, but what others? Like Anno Mundi, Holistic Era, Dionysian Era, Astronomical dating, etc. 66.109.53.196 (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello IP 66.109.53.196 - Please see MOS:ERA "The default calendar era is the Western Dionysian era system system", but "Other era systems may be appropriate in an article. In such cases, dates should be followed by a conversion to Dionysian (or vice versa) and the first instance should be linked" - Arjayay (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. An acceptable alternative to the BC/AD designations is use of Common Era labels, namely BCE/CE. This avoids the Christian connotations in articles which have nothing to do with Christianity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Creating a page please help

i'm trying to create a page for a living person who has done a lot in their life, and i have proof of who they are they have done, everything from shooting the first movie in their town, to art and being related to the famous group of seven artist, to music which has been used by the president of the USA, but not sure how to write it up. every time Wikipedia takes it down please help DJRRecords (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DJRRecords, welcome to the Teahouse. It is always good to check your talk page, which is here. You'll see that some other editors left some important information for your. It is very important to note that Wikipedia articles are only written about people that are considered notable in Wikipedia's sense (which often differs from what is generally perceived as notable). Furthermore, any claims to notability, and any information in Wikipedia articles must come from independent, reliable sources from third parties. Note as well that Articles must be written in a neutral point of view, which was one of the reasons (among many) that were given for rejecting your Draft article. Finally, as an aside, please read up on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which were two links that were placed on your talk page. Hope this helps.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 20:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

·

is their anyway I can get someone to help me write this article? i have all the info, the links, the photos etc, the proof :) needed but I don't understand the format of Wikipedia.DJRRecords (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

what I need is someone I can give the info to and then they can see it in their point of view, not mine. DJRRecords (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It would probably be more efficient to list the links and such on the article's Talk page, so that fellow editors might assist as they can. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

where do I find the talk page? DJRRecords (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please start by addressing your user-name problem as was explained in the first post at User talk:DJRRecords over 50 weeks ago - Arjayay (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Like Arjayay said. Anyway, the talk page would be associated with the article, or draft, and accessible via the "talk" link at the top left of it; but it seems you haven't actually created the draft yet. No-one will be able to help you write or improve the draft while they have no clue as to who it's meant to be about. Maproom (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft article has been cleaned-up, but no further action... Have I missed a step?

First, thank you all for supporting questions in this forum. It has been a great resource.

I created a draft article - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Samuel_Casey_Carter - and it has had an independent contributor/editor go in for clean-up, but nothing further has been logged.

I may have missed a step along the way (not unheard of, in my case). Is there another action necessary to have it vetted for official article status?

Please excuse my inability to figure this out myself, and thank you in advance for any counsel. Thomasrugby75 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes Thomasrugby75, you did miss a step. I've submitted the article to review for you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! (Which step was it?) Thomasrugby75 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Essentially, this (WP:AFC): "To nominate an existing draft or user sandbox for review at Articles for Creation, add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or sandbox page." I'm sure there are other ways to go through the process, too. Maybe some of our experienced hosts know where these instructions are typically found? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thomasrugby75. I took a quick look at your draft article and noticed two significant problems. The first is stylistic. Your references are not formatted properly. Please read Referencing for beginners and reformat them as inline references with complete bibliographic detail. The second problem is far more substantive. You must provide references to significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. Summarizing such coverage is how acceptable Wikipedia articles are written. None of your references look independent to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

can redirect pages have "a little something" in them?

Hi again folks. I understand that the optimal situation would be for a redirect page to be nothing more than a redirect. However, I wonder if there is a way, or a community consensus for the practice, of having a stub-quality article within a redirect page. Let me give you an example. Suppose I wrote about Paralogous genes in an article and created the link as I just did. That link redirects to "Homology (biology)#Paralogy", but the "Paralogy" section no longer exists! Thus, the reader who wanted to learn what paralogous genes are has to sift through the info about other types of homology. What I'm wondering about or suggesting is that the page "Paralogous genes" should be "Homologous genes are paralogous if they were created by a duplication event within the genome of a species." which is a slightly altered versin of one sentence in the fourth section of the "homology (biology)" article. After that definition, I would then write "For further explanation of homology, redirect your attention to Homology (biology)". Thus, risking being annoyingly repetitive, I suggest that "Paralogous genes" should be

"Homologous genes are paralogous if they were created by a duplication event within the genome of a species. For further explanation of homology, redirect your attention to Homology (biology)".

All of that is technically possible, but then "paralogous genes" becomes a stub without references, and eligible for deletion under wp policies. How does the community feel about stubs like that? Will the community realize that it is a redirect on steroids, rather than a stub that should be deleted? As always, thanks for your time and any guidance. DennisPietras (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not a good idea. The problem you recount (broken section redirects) can be countered by placing a hidden comment on the target page (see instructions: WP:TARGET), whereas the redirect page can have a template such as Template:R to section (that's the only kind of "a little something" that's allowed, really).

In general, it's a lot easier if only articles are articles, and everything else (redirects, disambiguation pages, etc.) are something else. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It worked!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you DennisPietras (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

I found an article not notable and added template for the same. But it was removed. Where did I err?

This is the article in question Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Basdei.

I didnt find any notable article and added the template, but it was corrected.

Sandy9292 (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sandy9292 Secondary schools are almost always notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Just adding to that a touch, this edit did add a header that is obviously not appropriate, and is probably a mistake, but it looks like it was such a big mistake that the person who reverted it thought it was outright vandalism. TimothyJosephWood 17:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Sandy9292, and welcome to the Teahouse. The templates you added were not the right ones for non-notable articles, since (1) you specified, when using the {{Notability}} template, that the article was a Biography of a living person, even though the article is not about a person (see Template:Notability for more information on how to use the template), and (2) the {{Wikipedia subcat guideline}} template is not for articles in the Main Space (see Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline for the documentation). I haven't gone through the article myself yet, but please make sure that by "not notable", you are using the special definition of notability that Wikipedia has defined, and not based on any subjective opinion. Hope that answers your question.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 17:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Consensus?

Hi there, i'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I have a question. I have a vast amount of knowledge about Batman, and the section which explains his utility belt doesn't explain many of the gadgets. I really want to add some important information about items he carries in the belt, however I keep getting asked to make a consensus. I don't fully understand what that is, but from what i've read, it seems to be quite a lengthy process. Can someone elaborate?

Sjmtz (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sjmtz. For the full explanation see WP:CONSENSUS. In an nutshell, with very^veryvery few exceptions, consensus is how basically everything on Wikipedia works. The community makes its own rules for articles and editors and the community decides what kinds of content we include in articles and why. So if someone reverts your edit, the first thing you are expected to do is to go to the relevant talk page, and start a discussion so that the folks involved can hash out the issue, and hopefully reach a consensus of your own regarding your particular disagreement. Sometimes this involves bringing in outside opinions, which may entail a lot of different things that are all part of the Dispute Resolution Process. But most of the time, it's the people who edit the article that reach their own consensus, their own agreement, about what should be in it. TimothyJosephWood 16:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sjmtz, as Timothyjosephwood says, what they are saying is "You haven't convinced us that this is a good edit. You need to do so before we'll accept it". (If the page had not been semi-protected, it might well have gone according to WP:BRD: you would have made the edit to add the material, somebody would have reverted you, and then you would discuss it on the talk page. They are effectively doing the same) The word consensus means "General agreement among the members of a given group or community", and that is what you need to create, but you can't do so on your own!

I suspect the guideline that the others will be thinking of is Too much detail. This does not in the end say how much is too much detail; but it might well be the background against which you need to argue that your material is appropriate.

Two more points: 1) Everything in Wikipedia should have a reference to say where it is published, so that a reader can in principle check that it is correct. If possible we ask for an independent source; but in a case like this I guess a reference to the comic where the thing appeared would be enoughy. 2) on a talk page (or a project page such as this) please don't alter material that is already there, even your own contribution, if somebody has already answered it. It makes it hard to understand what the discussion has been. Always continue the discussion by posting a reply, not altering what you wrote before. --ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

To add negative news to a firm's page

Hello,
Is this fact something that can go on Jaypee Group's page (with appropriate and reliable sources)?
(Details: Jaiprakash Associates is one of the companies under the Jaypee group. I am redirected from page for Jaipraksh Associates to page for Jaypee group. This company has defaulted on payments to its fixed deposit holders. The concernced govt. authority has granted them time till 31 March 2017 to sell off its assets and settle the debts. They have sold some assets, paid back some investors capital and interest, some only captial, while a lot are still waiting since 2 or 3 years for repayment of even capital)
If yes, then is there a specific format or a fixed section or heading? If no, then why not? Please guide. Thank you.
Roshni Kanchan (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Roshni Kanchan. In order to justify inclusion of content in an article, it needs to have substantial coverage in reliable sources, relative to the other content in the article. If this is the case, it may be suitable for inclusion. If it is however, something you merely happen to know is true, then it likely does not. TimothyJosephWood 14:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Roshni Kanchan. You say "with appropriate and reliable sources", so I think that meets most of what Timothyjosephwood says. Certainly negative news may be added, if appropriate. WP:UNDUE says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." So if, for example, just one reliable source mentions something, but several sources say something different, it might not be appropriate to include it. But if that source is reporting something recent, and there are no other sources since the alleged event, then it might be appropriate to mention it - but not to give it much prominence, until there are several sources to corroborate it. It's all a question of balance, and of consensus: if you are unsure, it may be worth asking on the talk page first, and seeing if other editors agree.

One important point though, is that an article must not use evaluative language - even as bland as "negative" in Wikipedia's voice. If you are directly quoting an independent reliable source that said that an event was negative for the company, that is fine; but in Wikipedia's voice it may say only that XXX happened, or that YYY said ZZZ. --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Timothyjosephwood and ColinFine for your replies. It is a good idea to write on that article's talk page so all relevant discussion is at the right place. I will summarize this discussion and ask my question on that talk page as well. But ... er.. whom do I address it to? I mean who will read one question posted on a random page?

If I use as a source a letter the company has written to its investors, which includes the court order and details of deadlines, amount paid, amount pending etc and which is present on the company's own website, do you think it will satisfy all conditions that you both wrote about? Will that be better choice than news articles?

--Roshni Kanchan (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Roshni Kanchan. Using primary sources like you are referring to is often helpful for knowing if something is true, especially for fairly mundane details that are unlikely to receive press coverage. But things like press coverage, secondary sources, are useful for telling whether facts themselves are important, since they mean someone who writes for a living decided to cover it too. Ideally, you would have secondary coverage to establish importance, and primary coverage to fill in the gaps when they don't quite cover all the details.

Since the article's talk page looks pretty dead, probably the better thing to do would be to be bold and add the content to the article. If someone takes issue and reverts your edit, then discuss the changes with them on the article's talk page. Take care to be as neutral as possible in how you add the content. Wikipedia isn't in the business of picking winners and losers, just in presenting the bare facts with as little opinion as possible, and when needed, presenting the opinions of important individuals as their opinions, not as facts, and never presenting the opinions of Wikipedia editors at all. Also take care to be neutral in how much the article presents, since the sheer weight of even bare facts, can have a way of being biased in presentation, even if otherwise neutral in content.

But other than that, every edit has a risk of being reverted, and that's what the talk page is for. TimothyJosephWood 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Should I link to the same article multiple times?

Hi there another Newbie here. I was wondering should I link the same word every time it appears in the article? Richard Racoon (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Richard Racoon. Nope, in general you should just link on the first instance, but further guidance on this is given at MOS:DUPLINK. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, This is the fastest answer I've ever gotten on a forum.Richard Racoon (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

How to edit a minor edit?

I rarely do any editing at Wikipedia, and when I do, it's always been MINOR. But sometimes I will suggest a change, usually due to grammar or to remove redundancy. So my Q is this: if I make an error in my explanation to others, for example: typing in the word "two" while I intended to type the words "a few" ... how does one change that goof? Or do we just ignore my error, and let it be? BTW, the written number "two" vs the words "a few" have nothing to do with the article. Again, this is a MINOR edit. Probably not worth using up this space! But I am sorta new, and I would like to know, for future reference. Many thanks! AlaskanAnthro AlaskanAnthro (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, AlaskanAnthro, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you make an error in your edit summary, you can ignore it. It's not a big deal and happens to us all. If you think your error might cause confusion, you may make a dummy edit (e.g. add an extra space after a word) and write a new edit summary. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Userbox

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia, but how do you create a new userbox? Thank youIExistToHelp (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@IExistToHelp: Welcome to the Teahouse. This link will help you create one.Riswa talk 06:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

How to publish draft

Hello. I am a long time user of Wikipedia and a first time contributor. I just wrote an article about an artist. It current says draft before the name of the artist (Matthew Kluber). How to I go about getting my article published?

Thanks! Al654 (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I recommend you take a look at WP:YFA for advice about your first article. For the specifics of turning it into an article from a draft, take a look at WP:AFC. PriceDL (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have tidied up a few details in your draft, and added an {{AFC draft}} tag which gives you a "Submit" button to use when you believe that the draft is ready for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Al654. You need to establish that this artist meets our notability guideline for artists. In my opinion, your draft relies too much on sources which are not independent such as galleries selling his work. A Wikipedia article should be based on summarizing what truly independent sources say about the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Phonetic Symbols

I do not know how to make the special characters in language articles appear. How do I do that? (for example, I copy this phrase from the Modern Standard Arabic article: " marḥaban; ahlan wa-sahlā". I can see the dotted h in marḥaban while editing, but not in preview or in an article. I am on the mobile app by the way). SammyMajed (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SammyMajed. I don't think there is a way, in the standard mobile app. In the desktop version, when you go into the edit window you can pick from a number of different character sets. WP:Mobile mentions some other apps that provide different facilities: I don't know if any of them have this. If you can't find anything there, I suggest you ask at WP:VPT. --ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

How to resolve disputes regarding proper editorial/discussion guidelines.

I’m relatively new, but I believe the primary obstacle I’m encountering is experienced editors who misunderstand Wikipedia policies. How can I gain some support for getting the editors in question to follow the policies in question?

Specifically, the experienced editors seem to believe they are exempt from structuring their talk discussion around weighting rules (to be based on determining the proportion of reliable sources rather than proportion of editor opinion), rules for weeding out fringe theories (to be based on reliable sources regarding the respectability in their field of the theories proponents, rather than editors opinion about the theory), and in general exempt from needing to provide reliable sources to back assertions they make in the talk discussions.

I believe the over-all problem is a disagreement about the philosophy of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I believe those editorial guidelines are intended to allow an article to evolve to become meaningfully different from what a majority of the editors currently think the content should be based on their personal opinions. My understanding is that if a structured discussion of the available reliable sources points in a different direction than the editors’ opinion, the article should be allowed to differ from the editors’ opinion of what the article should be until such time as the editors can locate reliable sources to shift the article back.

Editors will not all have the time to deeply ponder complicated topics. For controversial topics, they may focus more on policing than on examining new source information. For those reasons and others, I believe Wikipedia is designed to allow changes to occur in advance of an eventual change in the gut feel of current or future editors.

Because I called out the specific policies I believe the editors are ignoring. I suspect that the editors understand them but believe that, for reasons of expediently protecting the article from improper edits, they are exempt from applying the policies to a controversial article. The editors seem to feel that if they follow those guidelines, they’ll get overwhelmed by people who propose things faster than editors can response to, or who erect a “wall of text.” I respect those issues and limit the discussion rate and try to focus on only one narrow discussion at a time, so things don’t get out of hand, but the editors seem to try to re-broaden the questions and to still not follow the policies.

I’m not confident in the resolution methods for this policy conflict. 1) The editors in question seem to be unwilling to discuss the policy dispute explicitly, 2) The content-dispute resolution methods seem prone to being derailed by the failure to follow the policies in question, as well as by unduly casual rendering of opinions. (so I can’t ignore the policy problem and just focus on content and expect to get good results) 3) the editorial rules resolution method seems to be ANI, but ANI seems subject getting derailed into something other than a resolution of the dispute over what rules should be followed and 4) Starting an ANI seems like a dangerous way to find out how serious Wikipedia is about the polices in question.

The ANI process seems to be the only one designed to focus on process issues like the above, but I get the impression that in practice ANI disputes are usually resolved to side against anyone who they believe has a content dispute, and side against anyone complaining of actions of a generally very respected and accomplished editor who is impeccably polite and informative in general.

ANI seems to be designed to address malicious or recklessly disruptive behavior, rather than well-intentioned misapplication of proper editorial discussion rules. It also seems that once an ANI is started, it will devolve into an over-all critique, unwilling to closely examine the evidence of the misapplication of guidelines (because at some point a few specifics are needed to show the an example of a policy not being followed.) I get the impression that the ANI will devolve into a person A against person B, losing sight of the specific editorial policy concerns. An editor expressed confidence that I’d get “hammered” if I brought an ANI, declining to offer details, but the above is my best guess for why based on all feedback I’ve received.

Are my concerns unwarranted? Again, how can I gain some support for getting the editors in question to follow the policies in question?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rob Young in New Hampshire. Which article are you referring to? Such a lengthy and complex presentation can only be addressed properly in the context of a specific debate. I recommend that you begin by a careful reading of how consensus works here on Wikipedia. If consensus is against you on one article, there are well over five million others to edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I’ll reach out to your talk page, but for the benefit of any readers here, consider this:

I think there is a misperception in an "answer" provided to the newer "consensus" teahouse question: (dif): "In an nutshell, with very^veryvery few exceptions, consensus is how basically everything on Wikipedia works. The community makes its own rules for articles…” That seems wrong because the community should not be able to waive “policy and sources” rules just because doing so makes it easier to police the content. Based on those rules, the article should reflect the “balanced truth” as defined by net of all available reliable sources, even if that differs from the balanced truth as defined by the gut feel of the editors. Those two definitions of truth should converge over time, but talk page says it is not the mechanism to do that, nor can most editors commit the time to let it do that even if you wanted to. Only when the editors can be reminded to follow the “policy and sources” and let the article and discussion evolve based on policy and sources, can opinion the article topic converge to better match the “balanced truth” as defined by net of all available reliable sources. That, rather than omniscience, is what Wikipedia promises.

I think the problem I’m running into is experienced editors’ apparent misconception about WP:Consensus, particularly this phrase: ”Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense.” It seems perhaps “and common sense” ends up meaning, in practice, that the talk page instruction really is “This is a forum for general discussion of the article's subject,” rather what it really says, which is the opposite. In other words, they act as if the consensus is supposed to be regarding the articles subject rather than regarding how “policy and sources, when applied with common sense”, say the article should read. By failing to follow policy, they prevent such consensus from properly being formed.

It’s just so tempting to look at the specifics of the article without keeping the above in mind that I think is why the editors feel that the ANI process will not side with my concerns. Also, based on WP: consensus defined, there is nothing resembling consensus on the article in question, but something much close to gut-feel voting. I want to focus energy on articles with such problems, rather than just look for pages to edit.

Am I misinterpreting WP:consensus? Can ANI drive proper interpretation of it?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Quick stat boxes

How to make the quick stat boxes which appear on the top right corner of famous articles? Baldclock (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Baldclock, I assume you mean infoboxes. You can read more about them at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. All the best, Taketa (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Taketa. Baldclock (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing

Hello. Assist in editing this stub: Sadura. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riswa (talk • contribs) 06:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)‎

Hi Riswa, welcome to the Teahouse. Normally, this place is for editors to make enquiries regarding issues they come across while editing Wikipedia. So, you might not get what you want by posting here. May I suggest you try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian districts or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India instead? -- ChamithN (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@ChamithN:  Thank you very much! Riswa talk 06:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

New page

How to create a new page on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKYKEY (talk • contribs) 09:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@SKYKEY: Welcome to the TeaHouse. There are so many new pages that you can create in wikipedia for example:

• A talk page
• A user page
• A sandbox page
• A article page e.t.c

Which new page do you want to create specifically? You've already created a userpage and a talkpage. Riswa talk 11:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Riswa: I'm not convinced that SKYKEY has created a talk page; which one did you have in mind? If they mean to create an article, WP:Your first article is good advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Creati

How do i create an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeidipimp (talk • contribs) 17:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jeidipimp. You can find lots of information (including a warning about how difficult it is to write an acceptable article, and the adviseability of spending some time improving existing articles before you try) at your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)