Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

AlanM1, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Astralwerks New Logo - Edit 3/6

Hi there -

I work at Astralwerks Records and so I cannot edit our label page as my edits keep getting removed. We have a new logo and updated website and I just want the new logo on our page. This is becoming quite the issue for me at work as I was asked to do it a month ago and I can't seem to get it to stick. Can someone please help to update this for me?? astralwerks.com has all the proof and new logos etc.

THANK YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.249.90.65 (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello there. If you are talking about this page (Astralwerks), I do not see any edits to it that occurred today. To update the image, navigate to File:Astralwerks New.jpg and scroll down to where it says "Upload a new version of this file", and do so. Also, in the future please sign your post by using "~~~~" without the quotes, at the end of your message. — BladeRikWr 20:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It says I cannot overwrite the file, and there is nothing that says "upload a new version of this file". I didn't try the update today but I did a few days ago and am just following up. can you please update? 209.249.90.65 (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized you need a Wikipedia account to upload images, to prevent image spam from random IP addresses. Please create an account; it's free and only takes a minute. — BladeRikWr 21:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I logged in and am still seeing the same thing. I've also in the past suggested the edit and no one helped me. Is it possible for you to just upload a new image? It's right on the website... Nicolee2492 (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard! Just upload it there, put some information and then it should be available on Wikipedia. YouGottaChill (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It won't let me use the uploader as my account is not confirmed because I have not made 10 edits. Can someone please just upload it for me? Nicolee2492 (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried, but it's funky. THe image seems to link to the old logo, but the new logo shows up, too. Check the image file history., It seems to be there to me. Maybe you can work with that. What'd you change it for, anyway. The old logo's pretty good. If you all want an update, just, make it orange. Liberty5651 (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Problematic editor?

I'm a bit confused here because I want to see some action taken against an editor, but he is very good at hiding his intent and gaming the system rather well. Providing diffs to prove my case is hard to do for this reason and I would like someone with more time than I have to have a good look at the situation as a whole. It concerns the user Ylevental. Since his arrival on Wikipedia his editing has been highly questionable from the point of view of neutral editing, especially early on prior to learning how to game the system. His bias is towards promoting negative attitudes towards the autistic community, and removing any positivity. Early on he tried to delete articles about those promoting this positivity (eg Amy Sequenzia, Jim Sinclair, John Elder Robison and most recently Julia Bascom) as well as creating articles for those who take a negative view (eg Jonathan Mitchell, David Miedzianik, Benjamin Alexander (which has been prodded for deletion as I type this), Thomas A. McKean and the National Council on Severe Autism and he also has a draft for Thomas Clements). He has been editing current articles on Neurodiversity trying to promote the bad things and temper the good things and he has tried the same with Steve Silberman as well as trying to hide his own conduct by archiving the talk pages of both Neurodiversity and Jonathan Mitchell. There is a lot to go through but if someone could take the time to go through it I feel sure an agenda will become clear. If enough evidence can be found for action I think a topic ban would be ideal. He has a self confessed conflict of interest with Jonathan Mitchell, and at the very least he should be banned from editing that article. This user is adding bias and should be stopped. But it won't be easy and I hate passing the buck, but as I have said this needs someone with the time to look through it all in detail. Thanks for your attention. 2001:8003:5901:B400:71FC:9523:9E60:1970 (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Ylevental had been a Wikipedia editor since 2015 and has contributed close to 2,000 edits. Any eval for non-NPOV will not be simple, and likely beyond the scope of Teahouse editors. Is there another place this concern should be directed to? David notMD (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I've just spent a few minutes looking into these allegations. I think the IP editor has failed to interpret edit histories correctly. From the articles listed that I've looked at so far, the editor in question does not seem to have done the things alleged. I've remove the PROD which was incompetently place, but by an IP editor not a registered user. I see there has been discussion at the talk page of Neurodiversity and consensus reached. David is right to point out that this is not the forum to investigate other editor's motives. But my initial assessment is that they have endeavoured to add balance and weight to the articles they've edited (some they haven't edited for 3 years), and that your accusations are unfounded. And early on in our editing careers we all did things differently than we do today. There is absolutely nothing wrong in creating pages about notable people who take different views of the world than you do. You can't accuse an editor of bias on the grounds of page creation! You would definitely need to collate 'diffs' and present them as evidence at WP:ANI if your attempt to engage with the editor directly and to express your concerns to them was not deemed by you to be satisfactory. You've only ever made three edits here under this IP address, so I cannot see any evidence of that prior engagement, nor on their talk page. I do see discussion of disruption by IPs as part of a concerted campaign to modify the Neurodiversity article. Best wishes. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: - You haven't looked enough, Nick, with all due respect. Everyone he has added material to is against Autism. Everyone he has cut back (or tried to delete via AfD) is for it. He's gaming the system, and it isn't easy to spot so looking for just a few minutes isn't long enough. Like I said, I don't have time to go through it all myself for diffs. He's soapboxing by stealth, and you can hardly deny his COI with Jonathan Mitchell (it's on the talk page). Approaching the editor directly doesn't work. I do accept that the Teahouse editors aren't much better off timewise than me, but that's why I was (and still am) confused as to what to do. There is evidence off wiki but I can hardly present that to ANI obviously. I can give you one example - on the National Council on Severe Autism article. He tried to claim the executive were "well known" with an independent source. I put a tag on it looking for proof here. Consequent edits had the editor trying to put it back instead of getting an independent source. Eventually he did the right thing, because I believe he realised that if he persisted he'd be caught out as biased. Just now I restored the notability tag (I believe WP:TOOSOON applies, and they've done nothing of note. In effect it's a promotional article IMHO. Just to give you an idea. 2001:8003:5901:B400:D149:79D4:9C09:FA93 (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

If your problem is a POV editor, I advise you not to look in the mirror. You are coming across as a rabid and borderline-prevaricating advocate. "...Against autism...","...his bias is towards...promoting negative attitudes towards the autistic community, and removing any positivity..." are such blanket statements, as is "...trying to promote the bad things and temper the good things...". You have a very partisan outlook, which Wikipedia, by its mission, does not have. I also wonder why someone with as much WP editing experience as you obviously have is presenting themselves as an IP editor with only 3 edits. You are not the only WP editor who can see around corners. As an uninvolved bystander to this drama, I perceive that you may be a partisan actor of the first order, and, in my view, less than honest in your self-representation.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: I think you need to look again. The POV issue is with the other user. Is it suddenly applied to me as well when all I'm doing is trying to get biased material removed? Why is that suddenly an issue? How about you look for example at the talk page of Jonathan Mitchell and an ACCOUNT pointing out the issue I'm talking about with just that article alone. Also I can't help it if my IP changes every time I sleep. You're falling for his con and you need to remove your bias against me and have a look at the issue instead of assuming. 2001:8003:5901:B400:A5F7:B6A9:978C:1449 (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Your attempt to ping Nick Moyes won't have worked, IP editor. You can't ping someone by adding a ping template to an already existing comment, like you did here, because the notification is only triggered when you sign the post. See Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events for an explanation. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the assist. 2001:8003:5901:B400:A5F7:B6A9:978C:1449 (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you here to build an encyclopedia, IP editor?--Quisqualis (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: Yes. And protect it from unencyclopedic information - which amounts to the same thing. Balance is balance. 2001:8003:5901:B400:6404:8665:63F3:E517 (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@IP editor: My advice to you is to register for an account and use that to watch and monitor the activities of any editor or at articles you have concerns about. Record diffs that provide evidence of your allegations, and then take them to WP:ANI where both their and your interactions and edits will be looked in to. It is unfair of you to throw any allegations around (as you've done here at the Teahouse and here at Autism, and who knows elsewhere under other IP addresses. If you don't have the time to do this, it seems unreasonable to throw allegations around, and then leave it for others to invest their time instead. I agree that I only spent a short time assessing your allegations. You provide the diffs (rather than just point to an editor whose contributions you dont like) and somebody may then take your concerns more seriously. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I am not being unreasonable. In fact you are being unreasonable expecting me to do something I have chosen not to do. This is worth the time to invest. It just needs someone who has that time. I do not - account or no account. There is off wiki evidence but I can't link that as it would violate the rules of WP:OVERSIGHT. I gave a number of clues as to what articles to look at, and also note what I said above to Quisqualis about the review on the talk page of Jonathan Mitchell. I was going to send that back to AfD but I have to wait a week now because it's been protected. No one's reading that review and I think they should. It's a very powerful indication of not just the issues with that article, but also about this editor's conduct. 2001:8003:5901:B400:6404:8665:63F3:E517 (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@IP editor. I'm just giving advice, that's all. I'm sorry if you think that's unreasonable. We are not an investigatory noticeboard - we give advice. You came here with your concerns and we advised you. If an editor chooses to investigate, that's up to them. But you would, I think, be wasting everyone's time trying to put the Jonathan Mitchell (writer) article up for an WP:AFD discussion, bearing in mind there's a very detailed Newsweek page about him. That said, I have supported the proposal to remove some content that has been repeated in detail in too many articles, including here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Re the AfD. The talk page of the article presents a very strong case opposing notability. Newsweek is just one source. To be notable it needs multiple sources to that degree and there aren't any. Anyway, I know for a fact that Jonathan Mitchell was pestering Newsweek for equal time after they gave the far more notable Ari Ne'eman ink and they relented. I think it's on his blog - yes not a reliable source but then I'm not looking to add that to the article here. I do however thank you for doing that to the All in a Row article, so it does show you're starting to get the idea of what this editor gets up to by stealth. There is more in the other articles I mentioned at the beginning I think, and I'll wager Ylevental will fight you on your deletions (if he hasn't already, I haven't looked yet and I'm about to). 2001:8003:5901:B400:647D:C647:E62D:64C9 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@IP editor: You are not here to build an encyclopedia. The statement "you are being unreasonable expecting me to do something I have chosen not to do" is what 2-year-olds say to their caretakers on a daily basis. We don't invite that age group to participate in editing WP, because that attitude, while serving the child's emotional needs at the moment, is unconstructive for WP. If an editor says what you said regarding, for instance, providing source citations, that editor is soon blocked on WP. With your dynamic IP, that will be a challenge, but doable. You are not the only disruptive editor in the history of Wikipedia. Wanting other editors to play Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys for you when you're perfectly capable is lazy, and insults the other editors. Sorry to frustrate you, but those are the facts. You won't change them.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: Uh huh. Way to be a bully. Is that how this place works? It so happens that I have a life off wiki. What, aren't I allowed to? It's you who's being the child right now, stubborn as a mule. Well guess what - I can play that game to if I want to. But I won't because I have the guts to tell the truth. You don't want to know. This is serious. Ylevental is violating WP rules and I want someone who has the time to look at it and properly. That is why I came here first. That editor is the one who is NOT here to build an encyclopedia - or rather he is, in his biased "requirements" against WP:NPOV. If you block this IP all you're doing is maintaining that regime, and opposing balance. He's a soapboxer and needs to be stopped. Let's talk about him instead of me huh? All you're doing is distracting from the issue. 2001:8003:5901:B400:647D:C647:E62D:64C9 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, both. Let's calm this down, shall we? We can all be polite, can't we? I am (slowly) seeing that the IP editor does have some grounds for concern, but similarly I, too, don't have the time or motivation right now to investigate four years of alleged POV editing by one person, when no diffs are offered. Nor is this forum the right place to address such matters. As yet I have deleted nothing from the article referred to above, but may do if more involved editors choose not to. The one thing that does surprise me is that one editor has made three wholly unmerited and failed proposals to elevate the article, firstly in 2015 from a Stub to a Featured Article, then two attempts in 2016 to promote it from a C-class article to Featured Article, without any effort being put in actually to improve the article in any meaningful way. (See and expand the 'Article Milestones' section at Talk:Jonathan Mitchell (writer).) Seeing the "a former Featured Article candidate" template permanently in place at the top of the article, despite its abyssmal failure ever to reach anywhere approaching even A or B class in coverage, quality and referencing does beg the question whether some editors on Wikipedia have in the past unfairly used FA nomination to 'game the system' by making articles permanently look to have had far more quality and coverage merit than has ever justified. I've never considered this before, but might look into it, and try to learn how the folks over at WP:FA dealt with such matters, and under what circumstances it is reasonable to delete former FA candidate template notices on the grounds of being nowhere near ready and/or simple POV-pushing to promote an article's apparent importance. Unless anyone here knows? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)  

Where can I see the older version of the page?

Hi there, I see on a page, history shows as many as 500 versions, how about if I want to see even older version?

Thanks Wraper11 (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wraper11: Welcome to Wikipedia. Click the "Older 500" link and it will show you the next 500. RudolfRed (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

[Tweaked your formatting – please use one or more colons to indent one or more spaces as I have done here (so a reply to this comment should start with two colons, for example); leaving blank spaces results in an odd-looking text box.]

To address your query, at the bottom of each history page there are a number of options to change its display, including the number of edits shown on the page and whether they are the most recent or the next oldest edits. Five minutes playing with them should show you how they work. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.27.125 (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

To better address your query, clicking on "prev" for an entry in the View history list shows the changes that editor made. Clicking on the date for that entry shows the old version of the article. Old versions can be seen but not edited. David notMD (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Totally got it, thank you guys! Wraper11 (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

How to remove pages from categories?

I edited a couple of articles that were in inaccurate categories, and at the bottom of the pages the categories no longer appear. When I go to the category pages themselves, the pages also seem to have been removed until I log out of my account..and they become visible again. Is this common? What's going on? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudzuman84 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kudzuman84: Can you give us an example of an article and the category you tried to remove? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

On the category of living people I wanted to remove someone who is now deceased. Refreshed the page several times and sometimes the name was still visible, then they were gone, then they showed up again, and last I refreshed they were no longer there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudzuman84 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kudzuman84: Which article was that? I don't see any such edits in your edit history. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Garland listed in the persons with cancer category despite having died months ago. Article is not visible when I'm logged it but then reappears when I log out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudzuman84 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

What does it means when I see "The page ‪User:Wraper11‬ has been reviewed."

What does it means when I see "The page ‪User: Wraper11‬ has been reviewed." from email? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraper11 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wraper11 - And welcome to the Teahouse. It simply means that an editor who has "New Page Patroller" rights has looked at your user page and tagged it as reviewed. Some editors do this, since there are certain things which aren't allowed on user pages (to see that, look at WP:UPNOT. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you got it. Now my question is answered, what will happen here? Will this question be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraper11 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The question and replies will be archived in a few days. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse Community - HELP Please!

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

I've tried to make a concerted effort to create a good article. Unfortunately, the reviewer does not agree... Fair enough. Not to excuse away my bad writing skills but I am an inexperienced editor in Wikipedia and not very familiar with how to translate reference content to a NPOV. Obviously a big problem. My intention is not to create a puff piece or an advertisement or even worse SPAM. I've made some effort to "tone it down" and don't mind putting in more time and effort but also don't want to spin my wheels. If anyone is so inclined, could you kindly take a look at the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kent_Tate and any suggestions, input, or help to improve the article are most certainly welcomed! LorriBrown (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I scanned the article and can see why you had trouble. Can you post on my talk page the URL of one profile of Kent Tate that appeared in a mainstream print publication? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Shortened the draft by 45%. Still needs work. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Thank you very much David! The article is really much, much better now. Thank you for the improvements and for taking the time to do that! LorriBrown (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: it is surprising, but creating a new article from scratch is one of the most challenging tasks on Wikipedia. Many articles go through multiple round of reviews, so please don't get discouraged. Keep at it, and get help - you'll get there.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement! LorriBrown (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Want to remove an article from the review list

Editathons - a great way to engage people of any age in contributing to our encyclopaedia

Hi, and thanks for the help. I am a facilitator for the second Art + Feminism editathon in Honduras and, even when in this event we are creating articles in Spanish, I wanted to write articles in English for the first time. Always about Honduran women to fit in the editathon activity. I started my article in my sandbox, but I realized that there was a call to ask for a review and I ask for the review. The thing is that now it says that it takes up to 8 weeks to review the article and my editathon event is in march the Saturday 16. I want to know if there is a way to down my article from the list and just create it to fit in my event or if can create the article while it's on review (I assume this duplicates the article). This is my sandbox article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Princesskaly/sandbox --Princesskaly (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Hello, Princesskaly welcome to the Teahouse. (I'm not sure if I should call you 'your highness'?) I have removed the WP:AFC notice from the top of your draft, whioch should stop if from being reviewed. Rather than resubmit it for review (and then face another uncertain period of time), I think it would perfectly acceptable for you to continue working on it, or perhaps just on the day of the editathon, and then to ask for one of the other organisers to move it into 'mainspace' (i.e. the main part of the encyclopaedia) if by that time they think it is an acceptable form to be moved. If you read this notability guideline, it may help you understand how we need to see how the world in general has taken not of this person, not just those working inside the cigar industry. I fear at the moment that it may not yet quite show that notability, though I admit to not having read the references - I've just looked at their urls and links to the cigar trade. Coverage in national newspapers, books or civic websites about a person or a company are really needed. And when I did a quick read through the article, I wondered if it might be that the company itself could more easily be shown to be notable, than the founder herself? Maybe you might wish to consider that approach, putting in just a section about her within it? The risk of moving a draft straight into mainspace is that it doesn't receive the feedback from the review process, but goes straight to 'new page patrol' which virtually all new articles go through, even after passing through WP:AFC. If at that point it isn't deemed notable, you do face the risk of it being put up for a deletion discussion. I hope this hasty response might be of at least some use, and good luck with your editathon - I've really enjoyed the ones I've been involved with. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

--Nick Moyes (talk) Hello and thanks for your response and quick action Nick Moyes I might consider your suggestion of making the article about the company and not the founder, although I wrote about her because it is a feminist editathon and wanted to highlight her relevance. I have a problem to find national newspaper references because my national (Honduras) is not your national (I assume) and actually not her national (France). I have a lot of french references that could be considered relevant in Europe, but not sure if in USA as well. So thanks and I will keep working on it to see what is the best way to do this. --Princesskaly (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Princesskaly, If you have (independent, reliable) non-english sources, use those. There is no requirement that sources must be in English. Vexations (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Princesskaly: I'm not fully sure I understand your reply. You may use any language reference you like to support notability or to support individual stated facts. Whilst English sources are preferable on en-wiki, it's definitely not a requirement. We do not judge notability only by whether a person has been mentioned in the NYTimes, or the Times of London (!), but we would want to see evidence of coverage in, say, major Honduran news media or Honduran historical books or journals, not just Honduran trade and insider journals. By the way, are you aware that you can make inter-language wikilinks between, say, en.wiki and es.wiki, using the {{ill}} template? It can be very handy at time to strengthen an article using wikilinks to other wikipedias when there is no article here on English wikipedia (and I presume, vice versa). Oh, and I'm guessing that you are probably already familiar with the Women in Red Wikiproject? If not, they may well be able to offer you and your editathon help and support on the subject of women's biographies (of which we do need a lot more here to redress the balance a bit!) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Titles

For biographical articles, is it okay to change the most common title in favor of the way someone officially named themselves? The article I have in mind also seems to be too ambiguous since it is a very common name. 92.13.135.132 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey anon. See guidance at WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia generally adopts the most commonly used identifier as a title (e.g., Bill Clinton vs. William Jefferson Clinton), even if the less well known identifier is legally or officially correct. GMG^talk 19:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

As GMG notes, Wikipedia usually uses the most common name for a person. If other persons have the same name, a disambiguation is added to the article title(such as Doug Jones (politician) and Doug Jones (actor)). You might be able to make a case for a different title depending on the circumstances, but someone's official name probably would not be enough by itself. If you told us which article you were referencing, we could give you more specific advice. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

just made a new article

hello,

i just made a new article, Joshua Sinclair-Evans, and there seems to be a problem with the external links, as the IMDB link i added doesn’t seem to work properly. i’m not sure how to fix it, and i was wondering if someone could help out? i’m also unsure about the categories that i’ve added, whether i’ve done too many?

thank you! – Joesimnett (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Joesimnett. It looks pretty dang good to me. I removed a few categories. Generally, you don't want a person in two categories, where one of those categories is in the other one. So for example, you wouldn't have someone in Category:People from Paris and also in Category:French people, because the Paris category is "underneath" the France category. GMG^talk 22:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

thank you GreenMeansGo! do you know how to fix the error with the external links? that’s the one part of an article i can never get right, haha! – Joesimnett (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Joesimnett: Do you mean the IMDB link in the external link section? It seems to be working fine for me. GMG^talk 22:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump's page - AGE incorrect

He's 73 not 72 as listed and will be 74 in June!

Please do the maths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.225.145 (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

If he was born in June of 1946, then he is only 72 today. Why do you think he is 73? RudolfRed (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Math concept names

A certain passage seems wrong to me, but I am not sure enough to simply change it. I would like for it to be discussed, but I don't see any local way of doing so. So, is this the venue for that? The passage in question occurs in the article 'List of mathematical concepts named after places': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_concepts_named_after_places

The passage is the very first item: anarboricity. It is asserted that this concept was named by Frank Harary for the city of Ann Arbor, and a reference is given in support of this assertion. However, the reference does not support such a strong assertion, but only that it is an unintended pun. After all, 'arboricity' is an appropriately defined term, and 'a' or 'an' is the standard prefix for negation, so the construction 'anarboricity' is an appropriately defined term. Furthermore, it is lacking the double 'n' that would naturally be expected if a true naming-after were being done. If I can get a consensus on this, I'll go ahead and delete that entry from the list. Kontribuanto (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kontribuanto: In my experience the students and graduates from The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor have a great deal of pride in their school. They like to describe everything in terms of the school, so that honestly or not, everything seems to be derived from Ann Arbor (there are more then a couple cultures that do this). It's the kinda thing that makes me suspicious. There'd be supporting evidence if it was a fact, right? That's what Wikipedia is about: sourced content. Does Frank Harry have any ties to Ann Arbor? Liberty5651 (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Kontribuanto. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for wanting to contribute. The appropriate place for this sort of discussion is the article's Talk page: in this case, Talk:List of mathematical concepts named after places. Though that particular page has had no activity since 2013, apart from an administrative edit last year, so your question might not be seen. (It might, though: it depends how many people have it on their watchlists). If you posted there and got no response, then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics would be a place to ask.

Having said that, I agree with you. I would suggest you edit the article to reflect more accurately what the source says. If somebody does disagree with you, they can change it back, and then you can discuss the issue with them on the talk page. (That is how Wikipedia generally works: see WP:BRD.) --ColinFine (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Help with Philosophy's definition

How can I request someone(s) look at the Talk page for Philosophy? There's an argument about the page's first sentence; Philosophy's definition. It's not easy thing to define. Some more opinions maybe useful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty5651 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

They may indeed be useful, provided they have been published in WP:Reliable sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Topic of Controversy

There's been a featured article that's been the centre of controversy at the moment. I'm somewhat conflicted I feel that the article should at the very least, be mentioning the controversy surrounding the newest movie she's being featured in. However, another user who is editing such article claims that it's not following reliable sources and claims that it's only coming from "pissed-off men" (despite one part addressing a controversy about one of her movies in 2013). Am I wrong for wanting to mention such controversy? What is the right way to address the controversy? And is there a conflict of interest when it comes to this article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brie_Larson — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouGottaChill (talk • contribs) 01:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The right way to do it is discuss it on the article talk page, where several editors have weighed in. I don't understand your comment about 2013 (white men existed back then as well, and some of them were not happy), nor the question about COI. --bonadea contributions talk 08:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Need help with requested articles with existing images

I put Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images together ages ago and maintained it for years. I haven't got the time these days.

Is anyone interesting in repopulating it with good items? It gets a solid 60 page views a day, so could mean plenty of new articles over time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm brand new to the editing side of Wikipedia. I might be interested in this if you could explain to me how it's done. I'm looking for a regular maintenance project to take on. Oetc (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, Oetc. That sounds good. However, let's wait until you have at least a few hundred edits. Right now, you have 10 edits. Having a little more experience with markup would be good. Plus, before I teach you how to maintain the page, I'd like to know you will actually stick around. Please let me know at my talk page if/when you are ready. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Abanindra Maitra

THE EDITOR TEA HOUSE WIKIPEDIA Dear Sir, Why did you remove the draft Abanindra Maitra ? it was submitted for enlistment in Wikipedia. I gave the external and internal sources for inline citation. Regards Nilima Sen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilima sen (talk • contribs) 04:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nilima sen, your draft is still at Draft:Abanindra Maitra. As you were notified on your user talk page, your previous Teahouse post and the host's reply was archived to here. —teb728 t c 07:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Need a debug why some page previews have an image and some not

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Need a debug why some page previews have an image and some not

 – –Ammarpad (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Business page

I am interested in creating a wiki page about a business, but I am directly related to the business concerned and I understand the requirement to have the page written from an independent point of view. Is there anyone able to help me with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benidormseriously (talk • contribs) 10:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Benidormseriously: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can make a request at Requested Articles, but that area is severely backlogged. The best bet for your business is to wait for independent editors to notice your business in independent reliable sources and then write about it. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent sources state. This will help show if your business meets the notability guidelines for businesses written at WP:ORG; not every business does. Also please understand that a Wikipedia article about your business is not necessarily desirable; see this page(this refers to individuals, but the principle is the same). 331dot (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Creating Another Source on WP:RSP

I want to add The Onion as not a reliable source to the Relible Sources - Perennial Sources but not sure where to start. I know that its mostly satire and written in a very funny way. I am pretty advanced when it comes to Wikipedia but the code looks like just a big mess. Maybe you could possibly help me add it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianWikiEditor (talk • contribs)

One potential hang up I'm seeing is that each of the entries at WP:RSP links to at least two different RSN discussions specifically about that source in general. Because the Onion is so obviously wrong, this appears to be the only time there was a dedicated (sub)discussion about it (and the consensus there seemed to be "can we focus on the Daily Mail, please?"). As WP:RSP says, In updating this list, please be mindful that it should only summarize the content of past discussions, and should not include novel arguments not previously covered in a centralized forum. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. I must have been more mindful as I never checked the past talk discussions. I guess we'll have to wait until another discussion appears. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@AdrianWikiEditor: Or you could start one at WP:RSN. No one's going to mind if you outright say "hey, can we have a short discussion going just so we can add it to WP:RSP?" Even if it gets WP:SNOW-closed, that would indicate consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

OTOH, "This is a list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed". It may be that The Onion is not one of those. I'd imagine that if someone discover something cited to The Onion they would just remove it without discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: You'd be surprised how many pages use The Onion as a source. Even the article for Wikipedia itself has The Onion.

Search for: insource:"theonion.com" on the Wikipedia search section.

I guess I'll create a discussion at the WP:RSN

AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

AdrianWikiEditor, wow, that number of cites is really surprising. valereee (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

DeniWejust remove it without discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deni We (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Of course, it can conceivably have a use as a primary source, as in "The Onion did a thing about WP in 2009." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

American football infobox text size inconsistency

Hi there, I've not been into the Teahouse for ages, but I wanted an opinion on a trivial matter and hope it won't take up too much of your time. The text in Template:Infobox person (e.g. Freddie Mercury) uses a slightly smaller font size than the body text, presumably to make it neater, less intrusive? Lots of other infobox templates are based on it, so I would expect them to follow the same format, but I've noticed that the infoboxes for American football players are inconsistent. Template:Infobox NFL biography (e.g. Tom Brady, Peyton Manning) appears to use the same font size as the body text (or very close to it), so it looks out of place because it doesn't match what I'm used to seeing in infoboxes in general. Template:Infobox NFL player (e.g. Bob Williams (quarterback)) also uses the larger font size – in fact I think it's just a redirect to Template:Infobox NFL biography so they use the same code anyway. However, Template:Infobox gridiron football person (e.g. Robert Williams (quarterback)) appears to be OK, i.e. it uses the smaller font size like in the generic Template:Infobox person. Can you throw any light on the discrepancies, and do you think it might need clearing up? Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rodney Baggins, well spotted. Most infoboxes like Template:Infobox gridiron football person don't specify font-size so they get the default for the infobox class. This is given by font-size: 88%; in MediaWiki:Common.css. The code of Template:Infobox NFL biography overrides the default with font-size: 90%, font-size: 95%, font-size: 100% in different places. An archive search at Template talk:Infobox NFL biography finds some discussions. It may be a factor that the infobox wants a smaller size for some of the content but doesn't want the smallest to be too small so it starts at 100%. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Is Customer Service Article Completed ?

Respected Host, I am Knowiunderstandit (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC) interested in Customer Service article in Wikipedia, I apologize but unfortunately it is not fulfilling all important contents which a reader must need to know about customer service in a good article. For examples, a proper definition of customer service is absent. Types of Customer Services are absent; Philosophy of customer, Origin and history of customer service is absent. Methods of customer service are also missing. Worldwide trend of customer service, General Principles of Customer Service and also Relationship/ Conflict between Customer Service and Culture are not mentioned. How we can make it a complete and perfect article ? Thanks Knowiunderstandit (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

One potential issue you need to look out for is that some of your sources (like the American Express and Crewapp ones) are commercial sources. You should really stick to academic literature. You also need to make sure that your references rather explicitly support your point. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Knowiunderstandit. On a general level, you probably can't make the article "complete", because all articles are works in progress. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress on this. Of course, some articles are better than others, and we should aim to cover all major aspects of a topic in its article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

References

"Good Article" has a specific definition for Wikipedia. Customer service is currently rated Start-class (a long way off from achieving GA) even though it has been an article since 2004. David notMD (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon attendee question

Hi - I am part of a group hosting an edit-a-thon tomorrow, and one of the attendees who has signed up online is using an IP address associated with possible vandalism and edit warring. I'm not sure who this person is, and whether they are the person who has made these questionable edits (or whether they just happen to share the IP address with another person making the edits). Do you have any advice for how to handle this situation, especially if the person comes to our event and engages in unproductive editing? extabulis (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Extabulis, Is this your event? https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Corning_Museum_of_Glass/Corning_ArtAndFeminism_2019 I would assume good faith and not worry too much about vandalism from an IP. The event (if it is what I think it is, and you use the dashboard) requires that all participants create an account anyway. Good luck tomorrow, Vexations (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Vexations - Yes, that's the event. Sorry, I should have linked to it! Okay, I figured most people attending an edit-a-thon would be coming to make useful contributions. (I've never had someone sign the meetup attendees list with an IP before, which was the only reason I looked into them in the first place.) Thanks very much for the advice! extabulis (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk page, numbers of people will be considered as the consensus?

Hi there,

If an editing war happened, so people talk in the talk page. Is the number of people the only factor to be considered as the consensus?

If one side has 10 people , but everyone just say maybe 1-2 words, while the other side have 5 people but everyone says way more words and way more reasonable reasons, still the 10 people side considered the consensus? Wraper11 (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wraper11:. The number of people supporting a position is given little weight in judging consensus. What's important is the strength of arguments and the extent to which those arguments fit with existing policies and guidelines. See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:VOTE. – Joe (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, the length of the posts have no relation to the quality. If those people saying 1-2 words are all just pointing to a policy that explicitly says "don't do this exact thing," and the other people are arguing at length without addressing that policy, consensus is with those pointing to policy.

The number of people is a non-issue in both directions, so be very cautious about citing WP:VOTE in a one against many scenario. If 100 meatpuppets say one thing and 10 experienced users find that policy says something else, those 2 are correct. If those same 10 experienced users tell a new user that they need to be careful about something, that person probably should pay attention. (The experience itself doesn't give weight, but rather one cannot gain experience without being able to make arguments based on sources and policy). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

Hi! I am very new to Wikipedia an am overwhelmed with how to submit. I tried submitting an article that only included one sentence (thinking that it would be easier to get it up and running). It was rejected and now I am not sure what the best next step is to resubmit. Do I edit the source? Or try again with more text/sourcing? Also, what exactly is the 'visual editor? Any advice/help is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applegatem3 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Applegatem3: The VisualEditor is a tool that you can use when editing Wikipedia without having to learn wiki markup. Please read WP:VE for more info. I will let someone else answer your other questions. Mstrojny (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Applegatem3, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. In the early days, that was how some people started articles, but we have come a long way since then, and become more careful. Writing a new article is one of the hardest things to do, and I usually advise new users to spend a few weeks or months working on existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before they try it. (As well as having a less frustrating time themselves, I believe that they will often add more value to the encyclopaedia that way than by adding a new article: we have a lot of articles that need some TLC!) But when you do want to have a go, we have a number of ways to help you, of which one of the most important is Draft space, and the articles for creation process. Have a look at your first article to see how that works, and come back here if you have specific questions. --ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Are there rules about cultural influence on the wikipedia content

For exemple on the en wikipedia, the baby boomers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers article contains 3 photos of american presidents.

Maybe this is a bad exemple for historical reasons etc., but do you get my question ? Should the encyclopedia be generalist and talk of every country or should the english version talks more of english countries even in non-country related articles ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.225.119 (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The picture is illustrative of how much influence that generation has on American politics -- three presidents born the first year of the Baby Boomer generation.

The article goes on to list dozens of boomers from around the world.

The English version of Wikipedia will cover any topic there are reliable sources for, not just those limited to the Anglosphere. There is the slight problem that because most of the users primarily speak English and often only have access to English-language sources, we're less likely to cover topics that have not been written about in English, but that's considered something to push against. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to tag drafts that have been submitted for consideration?

I'm curious why some of my drafts have been reviewed/approved within days and others are sitting many weeks. Are there reviewers for specific areas of interest and if so, is there a way to designate that in the article? I know I can't add categories yet. Or is it just luck of the draw? Thanks. Actaudio (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Actaudio, welcome to the Teahouse! Drafts in the Articles for Creation process are generally reviewed in a random order. While others have made similar suggestions for subject-matter based reviewers, none have been implemented as far as I know. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Actaudio. Each reviewer voluntarily chooses which draft to review and which to pass by. In my experience, drafts that are lean and concise, and lack any promotional content, and are referenced to indisputably reliable sources that clearly show the notability of the topic, will usually be reviewed promptly. Bloated promotional drafts loaded up with poor quality refererences that are ambiguous about notability are often passed by. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I want to create a page for my company and myself

I have achieved something notable and wanted to create a page about my company and also myself. I am the founder and President of FSD Pharma Inc. My company went from a valuation of 15 Million $ to over 1.2 Billion $ in less then six months My company broke all trading records in the history of the Canadian Stock Exchange ( CSE ) where it is listed All evidences and proofs of the things that I am talking about can be provided and is in the public domain anyways as my company is public The company's website is www.fsdpharma.com Please guide me on how to create a page for my company and if possible also myself

Thank you and best regards

Zeeshan Saeed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeshan1970 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zeeshan1970: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for asking. What you want to do would be highly discouraged by Wikipedia. You have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest(please click that link to review). Writing autobiographies is also highly discouraged by policy. Since you get income from your company you are also a paid editor(compliance with that policy is mandatory per Wikipedia's Terms of Use) These policies mean that you should avoid directly editing about your company as it will be difficult for you to edit with a neutral point of view, as people naturally write favorably about themselves and their work. Please understand that as an encyclopedia Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject wants to say about itself, only in what independent sources state.

If your company has done as you claim, it will not be long before independent editors notice your company in independent reliable sources and write about it. You can make a request at Requested Articles but that process is severely backlogged. As for yourself, if the only thing you are notable for is your company, you probably would not merit a standalone article about yourself, you could only be mentioned in the article about your company. Please read the notability guidelines for people (WP:BIO) and for companies(WP:ORG).

I would also note that an article about yourself or your company is not necessarily desirable; please see this page. Any information about you or your company, be it good or bad, can be in an article about you or your company as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. See Robert Kraft, an article about a businessman who recently had a scandal and was charged with a crime. He probably does not want it discussed in the article about him, but it is because the information appears in independent sources. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It is possible that the Canadian, indoor, cannabis-growing company you founded will become noteworthy by Wikipedia standards, with a mention of you within the article as founder, but without there being sufficient coverage of you as a person to warrant a separate article about you. David notMD (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

deleting a copyrighted image

I uploaded an image not knowing the copyright. I would like to delete it. The page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Begeman_profile.png

How do I delete it. It is a plot in a scientific journal which I have used in one of my own papers. However, it originated in an earlier paper referenced here: Begeman, K. G. 1989,A\&A,223,47

This is part of my first article which I have just started working on after a hiatus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrout (talk • contribs) 03:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bbrout. I have deleted the file as you requested. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

List of notable awards

Hi, do we have a list of awards that are considered notable, enough to fulfill WP:ANYBIO. Because most new bio articles are based around the fact that the person has won some award. Daiyusha (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Daiyusha: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not aware of a specific list of awards that are considered notable, that would probably be hard to compile given the large number of awards around the world of varying notability. Some are obvious like a Grammy Award or an Academy Award; others would depend on how well the award or its ceremonies are covered in independent reliable sources. If an award has a lot of coverage in independent sources, especially outside of the award's local area, that would be an indication that it is well-known. Something like the "Anytown, USA Best Actor Award" that gets little coverage would not be notable. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, if the award has a wp-article (or at least a re-direct to the org that gives it or something), or if a reliable independent source bothers to write something about that the person got the award, it's probably notable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Daiyusha, we do have List of awards, no idea how complete it is! valereee (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft

Should I get a draft approved before I get started on writing or does an approval process occur after it is written up? I have been doing a lot of research on upcoming music platforms for artists and am thinking of writing about either Create Music Group (articles in Forbes, Billboard, Fast Company, Variety) or Stem (articles in NY Times, TechCrunch, Hypebot). The companies are similar to Steve Stoute's company UnitedMasters which only has a couple references and gave me the idea. Any help would be much appreciated! I took a look at GNG after I was told here and thought these might be good topics to propose. Sorry for the long message. Thanks again all for your patience and help with a noob! Grimothy29 (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Grimothy29. Drafts are reviewed once they are submitted, but I can imagine that it would be frustrating to spend time writing and submitting a draft, only to be told that the subject does not meet the notability criteria, so it might be worth asking for advice on that here once you have decided on your topic. I wouldn't use UnitedMasters as a template - just because one article exists with only a couple of sources, doesn't mean that others will be accepted on that basis. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Grimothy29, for Create: the Forbes article is a full article on a single subject and a completely reliable source. Ditto the Billboard article. Fast Company is just a short blurb, but doesn't hurt. Variety is a shortish article, but it's completely on Create and the source is reliable. I think you're good to go for an article on them. valereee (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee and Cordless Larry: Thanks for the direction. I will go through the Article wizard to see if I can figure this out! Grimothy29 (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What should I do with pervasive use of 2d and 3d for 2nd and 3rd?

Hi, I've been adding leads for a while and tidy up some things I find as I go along. Lately, I've been making leads for the various squadrons in List of United States Air Force squadrons. I corrected a few typos of 3d and 2d to 3rd and 2nd, but I'm now finding them everywhere, including here: 2d Airborne Command and Control Squadron. It's 2d throughout the article and there's a redirect from 2nd Airborne Command and Control Squadron. I checked the Air Force website, where it's called the 2nd (https://www.offutt.af.mil/News/Article/1163199/wing-makes-move-to-nebraska/). I'm hesitant about changing such a pervasive usage, and reluctant to have time-consuming edits undone if I should have just left it. Some advice would be most welcome. – Shillings1005 (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Shillings1005 welcome to the Teahouse. (Declaration: I know zilch about this topic) You do right to raise your concerns before diving in to make alterations. Like you, I am also somewhat bemused by this seemingly illogical naming convention, especially as all of the official websites I've checked thus far either use 2nd, 3rd, 942nd squadron etc in their homepage titles, or some very short abbreviation like 2ACCS. That said, I see both forms used by the 552nd Air Control Wing (see home page) versus (welcome page)

Now Wikipedia has a naming policy called WP:COMMONNAME, whereby the title of articles is decided upon by what independent published sources mostly refer to a topic, not what the subject calls itself. That said, I can see no rationale for using such incomprehensible naming like 2d for 2nd unless all the military operatives deployed there are distant cousins of Flat Stanley! We would not name articles by what a bunch of military insiders like to call something - and clearly they do do this, but by what other reliable independent sources (worth checking news media and military books) generally call it. Because this unusual naming has been used across so many articles, it's almost inevitable that these concerns have been previously discussed and agreed somewhere. I suggest you should wait a while to see if anyone more knowledgeable answers here first, and then go over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history where you could search their archives before re-posting your question there. I see there is a style guide at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history, but I can find no answer to your question there. I agree with you that these odd namings are so widespread in titling and in content that it would be extremely unwise to unilaterally attempt to 'correct' them when there may well have been some previous WP:RFC on how they should be handled. But they seem pretty daft to me, and I would have expected the 'correct' name and then any insider abbreviation to be explicitly mentioned and emboldened within the lead paragraphs of the relevant articles. But my uninformed opinion doesn't count for much in this arena. It would be good to have feedback from you about how you get on. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes and Shillings1005, 2d and 2nd are both correct usage, choice is generally a matter of preference in general writing, but in this case we're talking about the names of something. If we look at List of United States Air Force airborne command and control squadrons we see the link to 2nd Airborne Command and Control Squadron written out with 2nd, but that link redirects to 2d, so I suspect there's been discussion and consensus somewhere. valereee (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:ORDINAL covers this. See discussion at WT:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_158#MOS:ORDINAL and the related Milhist discussion at WT:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_147#AFSOC_353_SOG_correct_title_-_353rd/353d Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, that took quite some reading through, but thanks, Martin of Sheffield for those links to really significant discussions which clearly shows that consensus was reached to change our 'Manual of Style to require 'nd' and 'rd' to indicate 2nd and 3rd or 552nd, and that this should be taken to include all the military article titles and their contents. (Pinging Valereee as this, I'm afraid, counters the advice you kindly gave in good faith.) Personally, I'm not going to wade through the lot and change them, but some Wikignome might well fancy the task (probably using WP:AWB than attempting it manually). Hope that gives you your answer, Shillings1005. And should you decide to make those changes, my advice would be to include in any edit summary reference to both MOS:ORDINAL, and also the military-orientated archived discussion that led to that near-unanimous consensus and re-wording of our Manual of Style. Thanks to all. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, and thank you very much Nick Moyes, Valereee, and especially Martin of Sheffield, for clearing that up for me. I've just been reading through all that and counting up how many articles need to be changed (a lot). A few more queries: in one such article where the title has already been changed, but not much in the text, I wrote in the lead The 33rd Fighter Wing, sometimes written 33d Fighter Wing, (33 FW) is a United States Air Force unit… I took my cue from Nick Moyes's suggestion to highlight the alternative in the lead, because there's plenty of inconsistency still within the article that can't be changed (refs for instance, and insignia) – any good reason why I shouldn't proceed in like fashion with further articles?; also, is there a simple way to get introduced to WP:AWB? – Shillings1005 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shillings1005: What you've started on 33rd Fighter Wing looks fine to me. (Offhand, I can't remember whether our guidelines require the acronym in bold too - I suspect it does, but would have to check). You can probably use 'Categories' as well as 'Lists' to help you find articles, even without AWB. You do have nearly double the minimum number of mainspace edits to be able request and be granted permission to use AWB - but it is a very powerful tool! When I had it installed on my last PC I only ever used it for routine finding things like finding and fixing typos, but even then, care is needed not to be gung-ho about accepting every suggested change you're offered without careful checking. Not liking to upset other editors, I still might, myself, be minded to drop by WikiProject Military and leave a note to say what you're proposing to do and show one 'fixed' example to get feedback - ensuring that you've addressed all the ordinal numbering right throughout the article. On the basis of our discussion above, I can't see anyone objecting - assuming you've done it all right - but it's always nice to explain what you're going to do if you are planning minor edits to innumerable articles to which someone might still have a strong - and now outdated - view about. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shillings1005: IMHO your approach in the lead satisfies both MOS and, more importantly, WP:RF. The principal of least surprise applies. Alternatively are there any WikiGnomes wanting to nip around the USAF with a can of paint? :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, oh, I didn't mean correct usage as WP's MOS, just in general writing using 2d vs 2nd are both acceptable. 2d is a bit obsolete, though, so I'm not surprised that MOS came to consensus on 2nd. valereee (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. To me 2d and 3d either refer to old UK currency (tu'ppence or threepence - pronounced throopence), or two and three dimensions. I chuckled at the comments from the American editors who thought it was a UK/European convention, whilst the UK/European editors was thought it was the Americans who were messing with the English language. Oh well, at least we know what Wikipedia thinks of it now. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment: for reference, here are some previous discussions of military unit ordinal indicators: 132nd Fighter Wing, 93rd Infantry Division, Naming conventions (military units), Manual of Style (dates and numbers). --Kkmurray (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Etiquette question: Should I tell them I meant no offense, or must I continue not commenting on the person?

Hello, friendly editors. 🙂 I was wondering if I could have the opinion of an experienced editor regarding etiquette.

Here is the situation: I was in a talk page and addressed another editor directly regarding their edit, via ping. A third editor entered the discussion. We exchanged one messages each. Next thing, in their second message, this third editor wrote "The revised phrasing is a huge improvement. Period. Secondly, WP:CIVIL." Okay, neither of us said anything even remotely uncivil. We were addressing the subject so far. If anything, I think saying "period" is uncivil; it is a rather blunt demonstration of being adamant and closed-minded. But unless I am much mistaken, "Secondly, WP:CIVIL" translates into "Secondly, stop being rude."

Now, the question is, what should I do now? Should I continue to address the subject matter only, refraining from commenting on the person? Or should I start to explain that I never intended any offense?

Also, must I ping the involved editor and invite them here? Extremecia (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Extremecia: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you don't mention the other editor specifically and are asking about your own behavior you don't need (IMO) to ping them here. In looking at the discussion I'm not sure why the other user saw it as uncivil; maybe the questions seemed aggressive to them, but I don't see them that way. If you are concerned about it, you could simply say "Thanks for your reply, I did not mean to give offense and I apologize". Other than that, I think I would just let it go. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

White space

The conversation at Talk:Broadway#White space would benefit from advice from an expert on why white space occurs in one browser but not another after the use of {{tocright}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

For info: This post has also been repeated at WP:HD and at Template talk:Clear. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

First publication was on 15th april or 9th april of Fagun newspaper

Hello !!

I have been around this article for some time about a newspaper article Fagun, but the sources are different, which source should be preferred.

• In this article the date of publication of newspaper is given as 15th april 2008 but their is no mention in the reference listed here:- as given in this article as its source|Allindiaaseca.
• I have found a source which has mentioned The first publication of Fagun as April 9, 2008 source:-| Orissa post

But its not sufficient to prove that on which particular date it is published. what to do next ? --Rocky 734 (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rocky 734. If you think that one of the sources is reliable and the other not, just ignore the second one. (If you think people are likely to come and change it, because the less reliable source is popular, you could discuss it on the Talk page, or put a comment in the source, or both). If both sources seem to be generally reliable, just quote both dates, citing each one, but you should not attempt to resolve the disagreement in the text. If you think neither is reliable, don't put the data in. --ColinFine (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rocky 734. Another alternative is to state that the newspaper was founded in April, 2008, and omit the specific date. For the reader, that avoids a confusing presentation about a very minor point. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Easy Question - How does a page move from Draft?

I've looked and have not been able to figure out the process yet. Thankful for Wikipedia though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Council.exchange (talk • contribs) 11:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Council.exchange: Wikipedia doesn't allow shared accounts, articles are not directory entries for companies to promote themselves or their owners on. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Italicise

I am creating a new article, but I don't know how to italicise its title. Can anybody please tell me how? Catinthedogs (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Catinthedogs. MOS:ITALICTITLE tells you exactly when and how to italicize an article's title. Cheers. Extremecia (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I need some help creating my account page.

I've seen things like

This user wants to save the whales.

on different accounts but I'm sure which ones I would like to add to my account. Does anyone have a list of the codes or help about this topic? Thanks, Sloth

SlothGamer (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

SlothGamer those are called userboxes; you can find info at Wikipedia:Userboxes --valereee (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

And, hm, looks like your user page is in violation of policy. You'll want to read the information at WP:User pages valereee (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

valereee hello and thank you, I have also taken the bits off my account that violate the terms, and once again, thanks. SlothGamer (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Publishing my wikipedia page - Akeem Griffiths

Good afternoon,

I was wondering if you could help me. I have recently published a wikipedia page for myself which i can visibly see. How do i publish it so when people type in my name on google my name appears ?

Many thanks,

Akeem — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkeemGriffiths (talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@AkeemGriffiths: You created a user page, which is not for promoting oneself.

Because you are Akeem Griffiths, read WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to understand why we strongly discourage writing about yourself or even editing an article about you.

If, after reading those, you insist on trying to write about yourself anyway, follow the instructions on this page. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing @AkeemGriffiths: Also read WP:OWN. Basically, it's not "your" Wikipedia page. It is our page about you (if we don't delete it). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Publishing our wikipedia page - Akeem Griffiths

Hi Ian,

Many thanks for the quick reply.

I really appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkeemGriffiths (talk • contribs) 17:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Akeem Griffiths - Our Wikipedia page

Hi Teahouse,

I have now created my profile. I know i am asking several questions so apologies but is it the case of just waiting for our page 'Akeem Griffiths' to be published ?

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkeemGriffiths (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AkeemGriffiths. Did you read any of the information which you thanked ian.thomson for providing?

• Wikipedia does not contain profiles. Not one.
• You may not use your User page to create something that looks like a Wikipedia article: it is a place where you may if you choose some information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. You can add a small amount of more general information about yourself there, but the purpose of the page is to make yourself known to the Wikipedia community as a Wikipedia editor, nothing else.
• You are strongly discouraged from writing or editing an article about yourself.
• You may not use Wikipedia for promotion of anything or anybody, commercial or not. Period.

Please read the links ian gave you, and come back if you have any further questions. --ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@AkeemGriffiths: As Ian and Colin pointed out, Wikipedia is not for you to promote yourself or your achievements. If you are truly notable (by our standards), someone will create an article about you sooner or later. That said, I moved your attempt of a draft in your user space to the draft space and entered it into the articles for creation system. You can now find it at Draft:Akeem Griffiths. You can edit that page and if an experienced editor finds the draft sufficiently establishing notability, they will move it to the main space. Regards SoWhy 20:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Colin,

I have read the content that was previously provided and the information was very useful. I completely understand that this is not a place to write an autobiography and it strongly advises that i should not publish an article about myself which i fully understand.

I don't know what the process is and my knowledge is currently lacking from a wikipedia perspective but i will do the relevant research as what i want if possible is an article written about me so when people type in my name in the google search engine a wikipedia page displays with information about me so basically wikipedia identifying who i am.

The reason for this is wikipedia is a great encyclopedia tool and i want the world to know what i have achieved so far.

Unfortunately i am not a wikipedia editor.

I hope this makes sense and apologies for the constant questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkeemGriffiths (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@AkeemGriffiths: please don't start a new section when you want to reply to somebody else - just edit the existing section instead. As for what you want to do: if and when you become notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability, somebody who is not connected to you in any way will probably create an article about you. It is not something you can have any influence over, however. Wikipedia only documents what has already been written about a topic in reliable independent sources, it is not a place to spread the word about topics that have not been written about. --bonadea contributions talk 20:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@AkeemGriffiths: If you just want to tell the world about yourself on your own terms, you should use a personal website that you own, or social media. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Colin did you the favor of moving what you created to Draft:Akeem Griffiths. This is a public place, in that other edits can add or subtract to it, but it is not in Wikipedia "Main Space" and thus does not turn up via Google searches. It has been submitted. I expect it to be declined. In addition to not creating proper references, I doubt you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Lastly, as noted above, People are STRONGLY advised not to try to create articles about themselves WP:Autobiography. David notMD (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all i really appreciate the information that you havbe provided. I have a lot to learn about wikipedia. 21:15pm

Many thanks.

Host

How or when does one become an experienced editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacDanson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@MacDanson: Becoming an experienced editor takes time, we were all newbies at one point. Keep using Wikipedia and overtime, you get more experience about how Wikipedia functions. Mstrojny (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, MacDanson, welcome to the Teahouse. Mstrojny has answered succinctly; I will do the reverse. I could reply by asking you how long is a piece of string? I genuinely don't know how to answer your question about experience. It almost depends who's asking! Even after six or seven years here, with some 30,000+ edits, and after a year of helping others at the Teahouse, I still feel I have much to learn about how Wikipedia works. Am I experienced? Personally, I've tried to gain experience of many different areas, and now I think I know the basics that keeps this amazing, wonderful encyclopaedia working, and I understand how I can best interact with, or maybe guide and support other editors. Perhaps I am experienced enough to know that I am not yet that experienced!

But almost every day I learn something new about how things work here, and I can look back to when I'd made just my first few, and then my first few hundred edits and can see how inexperienced I then was. But every one of us starts from that point, just as you are right now, and we welcome you. We need new editors like you to stick around, to learn and to do their best and to become the experienced editors of tomorrow. Take small steps at a time; don't rush. What brings experience is not time; it's not repeating the same old things; it's doing new things and learning from your mistakes, or from others who interact with you along the way, gradually realising that you can answer more questions than you find yourself asking. I can honestly say that watching, learning and occasionally helping others here at the Teahouse has taught me so much. It's been an honour to be able to help out. When I first started I didn't know there was The Wikipedia Adventure; nobody pointed me towards Referencing for Beginners or Your First Article, or even Articles for Creation or this Teahouse. (I wish they had!)

Of course, there are certain more stats-based indicators of 'experience' used as a base measure in determining whether an editor should be given certain roles and responsibilities such as WP:NPP, WP:ROLLBACK, or being a Teahouse host. But, maybe it'll come down to you being able to decide for yourself when and whether you feel you've become an experienced editor, and also how others come to judge the quality of your contributions and interactions. Listen and act on what others tell you. There'll come a time when you think you are there, and then along comes something that makes you realise there's still so much more to learn. If others here at the Teahouse can help you in that journey to becoming an experienced editor, we've done our bit to help Wikipedia, too. Oh, and next time, could you sign your talk page posts by typing four keyboard tilde characters right at the end (like this: ~~~~) - it helps others know who posted what, and in what order. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

New article

How can I create a article on Wikipedia?

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to contribute. You can read about the new article process here: WP:YFA. This is not something easy to do for a new editor. The usual advice to is start by working to improve existing articles instead. You can also learn more at the WP:TUTORIAL or the learning game WP:ADVENTURE. RudolfRed (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@MacDanson: Also, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts by typing four tildes (like this ~~~~). Mstrojny (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Marked for deletion ... how to respond?

My article is marked for deletion. Where do I enter a response? Do I edit the marked for deletion notice or do I respond directly to the editor? Is the notice the talk page itself? Article is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxy%27s_Ruler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrout (talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bbrout: There is a link in the notice at the top of the article: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roxy's_Ruler. That is where you can respond and discuss the proposed deletion. RudolfRed (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thank you. The only link I can find is this: "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." I assume I go there and edit the entry in order to respond? I am an absolute beginner to this. Bbrout(talk)

@Bbrout: That is correct. Read WP:YFA to learn what is needed for an article. It is not easy for a new editor, working on existing article's is a good way to get Wikipedia experience. You can also check out WP:TUTORIAL and the learning game WP:ADVENTURE RudolfRed (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thank you. I am now responding back and forth in what is becoming a very interesting discussion. Luckily I have a friend nearby who does a lot of editing on Wikipedia. Bbrout(talk) 21:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is not my artist profile published?

Hey,

I did our artist profile about 2 months ago and published it. But why is it not published yet? How long does it take?

Pleeeease help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobandJack (talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Ummm, you mean User:RobandJack? I also see this from 2017.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@RobandJack: I would add that usernames that suggest more than one person uses the account, or that are a group, are not permitted; you will need to visit WP:CHU for instructions on how to change your username. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This account wrote a highly promotional pseudo-article about a musical duet called "Rob & Jack", which was first deleted in 2017, and then again today. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion, and does not publish "profiles". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Unable to log in with username

Hi I have been inactive as a contributor for awhile now, but I would like to participate again. The problem is I have found my. username which is User:Mayalekhni. but forgotten the password. Unfortunately the system won;t allow me to reset the password as it says my. UN does not have an associated email address. Can you please help me with recovering my account? My email add is [REDACTED-THEGOODUSER]

thanks!

121.45.92.68 (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately unless you added your email address to your account, (which it seems you did not) there is not much that can be done. You will probably need to create a new account and identify it as a successor to your old one. 331dot (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I have created a. new account. (this time WITH an email add lol). Can you pls guide me to how I can link the two accounts? LekhniMaya (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

LekhniMaya You can't --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

LekhniMaya, I am sorry but Thegooduser is incorrect. You can edit your old userpage, adding a note stating that the account is inactive due to password loss, and providing a link to your new userpage. Similarly, you can add a note on your new userpage explaining that you formerly edited under the old account, and linking to the old userpage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 I thought they meant, that they wanted to add their new account to their old account, [ie log in to their old account with their new account.] --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

RationalWiki

Is the website RationalWiki related/connected to Wikipedia because the layout of the website looks identical. Same with Uncylopedia?

Stephengonzalez100 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Stephengonzalez100, welcome to the Teahouse. Nope, no connection at all, apart from that it appears to use the same freely available mediawiki engine (see here), and thus has similar layout. We do have a neutrally-writtten article about it here on Wikipedia, if you're interested. See RationalWiki. I like the suggestion that, unlike us, it takes a SPOV ('snarky point of view'!), Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Welcome to the Teahouse, Stephengonzalez100. Neither of those websites has any direct organizational connection with Wikipedia or its parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. However, they share the same freely licensed software platform called MediaWiki, which is used by thousands of websites. That accounts at least in part for the overall similarity in appearance among those websites. Developers of smaller wikis may also believe that resembling Wikipedia in appearance adds to their credibility. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

We also have an article about Uncyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Username vs User Page

I requested to change my user name but only wanted to change the title of my page because it had my username as the title. I still want my username to be what I log into my account with but my page name to be my real name since I am a notable recording artist. I researched how to rename it and I did do it. Did I do it correctly?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎7light7 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 7light7. I have moved your old userpage to Draft:Kristle Murden. You are attempting to write an autobiography, which is both strongly discouraged and very, very difficult. In most cases, I would advise you to drop the effort. You may well be a rare exception to that general rule, because you were one of the lead vocalists on Can You Feel the Love Tonight in the 1994 film The Lion King, and that is a strong claim of notability. That song won an Academy Award for Best Original Song, and you are the only one of the vocalists who does not have a Wikipedia biography. Please begin by reading Your first article and you may want to complete the interactive training called The Wikipedia Adventure. Please be aware that any Wikipedia article about you will not be your page that you control. It will be a neutral, well-referenced article that will summarize what reliable, independent sources say about you. All major assertions will need to be properly referenced to reliable sources. Please feel free to ask additional questions here at the Teahouse, or contact me on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Your draft has way too much information in the Early life section. In general, the article needs to be modeled on articles about other successful vocalists. With all the references and discography that involves. I also believe your career meets Wikipedia's definition of notability, but the draft needs help. David notMD (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me to validate my own page in the sand box. See the link above

Dear all, I try to create my own page in the Sandbox and I got an error message. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ukunsumo#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_sandbox_%28March_11%29 Hi all, I am a freelance web developer based in Japan. I wanted to create my own page in the sandbox as shown on YouTube. I received an error message: "Submission declined on 11 March 2019 by PrussianOwl (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

Can you give me some advices on how to resolve this issue. Cheers, Remi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukunsumo (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Remi. It's not clear what you're trying to do with your sandbox. Are you trying to create a user page or a Wikipedia article? There's a big difference between the two and they are each subject to separate policies and guidelines. If you can clarify which of the two you're trying to create, it will be much easier for someone to help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

First, please do not ask same questions at Teahouse and at Help desk. Your User page (see the link MarchJuly provided) is for a short description of your intentions as a Wikipedia editor. It is not supposed to be about you/your career. Wikipedia is not social media. There is no such thing as "my own page." On the very, very small chance you are famous/notable enough to be worthy of an article, Wikipedia strongly advises against trying to write about yourself. See WP:Autobiography. And sign your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Coding on table

I just did the 2019 lineup table on BBC Radio 1's Big Weekend and for some reason, it looks all messed up. Does anyone know how to fix it? It’d be a great help, thank you! – DarkGlow (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: Hi, possibly you just need to add some spaces between internal links? Something like this:

[[Stormzy]] [[Mumford & Sons]] [[Bring Me the Horizon]]

Or, even better, add explicit line breaks:

[[Stormzy]] <br/> [[Mumford & Sons]] <br/> [[Bring Me the Horizon]]

CiaPan (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Waiting since months...

Dear helpers, I have posted and, after rejection, substantially updated two articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Complexity_Science_Hub_Vienna&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Stefan_Thurner&action=history

I am convinced they fulfil the Wikipedia criteria (especially when compared to other similar pages). I totally understand (and do not mind) some weeks of waiting; but meanwhile it is months, for one of the articles even half a year since I wrote it... Is that normal? What should I do to advance the process? (This is a rather frustrating experience, to be honest...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avecaesaria (talk • contribs) 13:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Avecaesaria it appears that you submitted Draft:Complexity Science Hub Vienna for review on February 15, 2019 but it hasn't been reviewed yet. The AfC submission template states, "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2382 pending submissions waiting for review." So, it can take a couple of months before an AfC reviewer gets to it. Try and remember that every editor (including AfC reviewers) is a WP:VOLUNTEER and sometimes editors get WP:BUSY with other things.

Draft:Stefan Thurner, on the other hand, does not seem to have been submitted for review since it was last declined in November 2018. Drafts are not automatically reviewed by AfC reviewers to check for improvements after they've been declined; they need to be actually submitted by their creators for another review.

There's no real way to speed up the AfC process, but you can ask for feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Perhaps one of the editors helping out on that page can offer some more specific advice about the drafts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Avecaesaria: In the case of Draft:Stefan Thurner, you have not resubmitted it for review. Still, I would not do so yet. While you do cite independent sources ([1], [2], [3], [4]), they are not specifically or primarily about Thurner, just one thing he happened to be connected with (see WP:BLP1E). The rest of the sources are affiliated or connected with him in some way.

In the case of Draft:Complexity Science Hub Vienna, many of the sources you added either only mention the subject in passing (the primary subject of this source is Facebook, not CSH Vienna) or don't mention the subject at all (such as [5], [6]). The latter kind of reference is just a waste of everyone's time and bandwidth.

All you need to do is find a least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the subject but not affiliated with, nor connected with, nor dependent upon the subject, and summarize those. You can find more detailed instructions here. If there are not at least three totally independent sources specifically and primarily about the subject, then the subject is not notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse, please help me write a properly page as I am a very new and not experienced on this. I am trying to create a page but I do not know how to do it.

Please help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loc - Xinchao (talk • contribs) 13:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Loc - Xinchao: Hi, I suppose the WP:YFA page could give you some useful hints. --CiaPan (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Song problem

When I use {{Infobox song}}, and use the "tracks" parameter, the "prev_title" and "next_title" don't show. I don't know why this is. Catinthedogs (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Catinthedogs. Have you tried checking the template's documentation at Template:Infobox song#Track listing examples? There seems to be some discussion there on the use of the "tracks" parameter. Moreover, if This Is Lit is the article your trying to use this template in, then I'd be more concerned as whether the album meets WP:NALBUM instead of the the formatting of the infobox template because the article is likely going to end up nominated, tagged or proposed for deletion if you're unable to more clearly establish the album's Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2019 (UT

Need navigational template help

Please look at Template:Michael Jackson and see why group21 at the bottom doesn't display. I can't figure it out. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Probably it's because {{Navbox musical artist}} handles groups up to number 20. --CiaPan (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: How about this approach? I grouped four groups into a nested navbox: Template:Michael Jackson/sandbox. Some styling still needed. --CiaPan (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Templates meaning

Can someone tell me of the template below?

Brohoof!

Thanks. --TheWinRatHere! 16:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Thewinrat. I'm pretty sure {{brohoof}} is something to do with Bronies. It has plenty of uses on User and talk pages: if you pick "What links here" you can look at some of them and see how it is used.--ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why has vandalism been so high for the past few months. I'm pretty new here so I am wondering if this is normal. Doublethink1954 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doublethink1954: Are you talking about a certain page? If the vandalism is coming from one user, warn them and report to WP:AIAV when needed. If it is coming from multiple users, you can request that the page be protected here. Does this answer your question? Mstrojny (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really I meant that the vandal EnterpriseyBot has been reporting high vandalism for a while. Doublethink1954 (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doublethink1954: The user you mentioned is a bot. You may want to contact the operator Enterprisey to express your concerns about the editing of this bot. Mstrojny (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Quick question about Twinkle

I noticed that Twinkle doesn't have all of the warnings listed at Wikipedia:WARN. Why is that? Is it possible to configure Twinkle so that all of the warnings listed on the page are available for me to use? Also, does it matter whether I ask a question at the Teahouse or the help desk? Mstrojny (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Mstrojny. I'm guessing that Twinkle was set up just to offer the most frequently used notices. However at Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences#twinkle-config-section-11 you can custom edit additional warnings, and also custom welcomes. (I have one for Women In Red, for example that I use now and again, plus a couple of additional warnings I like to use.) It's fine to ask either here, or at The Help Desk, but we do frown on editors who ask the same question in two places at once. Give it six hours or more between asking elsewhere, so as not to waste volunteer effort in giving two identical replies. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I understood before you told me that asking the same question in two different places is not acceptable. I have seen editors asking the same question in two different places and they were told not to do that anymore. Mstrojny (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I think it would be a tedious process to add all of those warnings not listed in Twinkle. Is there an easier solution to this? Mstrojny (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we not have an option to specify a custom warning list, like we can article tags? Adam9007 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, Adam9007. I would recommend bringing that proposal up on Twinkle's talk page or Wikipedia:VPT. Mstrojny (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Adam9007: Sorry if my answer was unclear. What I was trying to say was that there already is an option, and that you can select and paste in the ones you feel you might want to use from other pre-existing templates in Twinkle's Preferences page, thus creating your own custom list of extras to pick from. You will find all the different types of templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, and more within that page's subpages. Or have I misunderstood what you are suggesting? @Mstrojny: you are right - it would be tedious to add them all to Twinkle. But do you really need them all? Bear in mind that there are also single issue notices, and single issue warnings and multi-level warnings for quite a range of common vandalism styles and other issues, I've never yet found myself wanting access to a massively long list of esoteric warnings which might even make the task of finding and selecting the commonly used ones much slower. I agree, that suggestions for making things even more effective should be raised at the Twinkle talk page. Finally, Mstrojny, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your question regarding WP:TH and WP:HD. In general, the Teahouse is probably better (and friendlier??) for newcomers to ask the simpler, less technical questions about editing on Wikipedia, whereas the Help Desk tends to get the slightly more difficult ones. After that, the really technical stuff can be asked at Village Pump (technical). And for those who can't be bothered to use Google of even Wikipedia to find stuff out for themselves, there's always a wide range of answers and opinions of varying quality on offer at the WP:REFDESK. Hoping this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I missed the option to add custom uw templates to Twinkle . I added some templates. Have I done it right? Is there a way to sort them? Adam9007 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Stop putting me on the spot! I'm really not brilliant at interpreting the .js file. But here's a diff after I successfully managed to add a custom warning to my Twinkle settings recently - mainly as a test to help another user. They don't quite look the same, but I guess one could reorder them within the .js file - I'm honestly not sure as I've never tried. But feel free to test it out by leaving me any warning notices you want to on my user talk page over the next few hours - I won't take it personally, and far better than doing it to an unsuspecting user. Just remove them all after you've finished testing -perhaps with an edit summary such as "removing test warning templates per Teahouse discussion with user". I'd hate to wake up in the morning and find myself indefinitely blocked by half the admins here! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing articles

When editing articles, I know "Publish changes" means to save the edits, but what's the difference between "Show preview" and "Show changes"?

97.90.47.253 (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 97.90.47.253. "Show preview" shows you the entire article or section you've edited as it would appear to the reader after you click "Publish changes", while "Show changes" shows you a side-by-side before and after comparison of just those things you've changed with your edit. If you try it out on any page, even the Teahouse or your user sandbox, you should see the difference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Good answer. I rarely use "Show changes", except to help me describe my current edits in the 'Edit summary'. Sometimes I've spent so long that I've actually forgotten what changes I've just made! Seeing just those, as-yet-unpublished edits highlighted in bold can be really useful. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

How to create new articles and protect them from new editors

How to protect your new articles from new editors so that it’s safe the way you create it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citylightson (talk • contribs) 21:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, @Citylightson: that wouldn't be Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit. There are probably other Websites that make you the sole, uneditable author of an article. Not Wikipedia, however. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Karen Hoyos International - Why is the article not being accepted?

I AM CURIOUS WHY THIS IS NOT CONSIDERED NOTABLE FOR WIKIPEDIA AT THIS TIME. THE ORGANIZATION HAS RECEIVED PRESS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES, HUFFINGTON POST, AND THE FOUNDER HAS BEEN PUBLISHED BY SIMON AND SCHUSTER AND POST HILL PRESS.

Extended content

Karen Hoyos International Karen Hoyos International, also known by the acronym KHI, is a global motivational speaking and coaching, equity, inclusion, and diversity management company headquartered in Miami, Florida, founded by Colombian born entrepreneur and motivations speaker, Karen Hoyos. Hoyos, the CEO, identified the need for motivational speaking to have a world wide presence with a significant focus in the Latin American marketplace. The business provides resources for business professionals, entrepreneurs, women, and diverse nonprofit leaders worldwide. KHI was originally headquartered in New York, New York until its current move to Miami, Florida in 2017. The company has significant staffing in Latin America, North America, and the Caribbean, with a smaller presence in Africa, Europe, and Asia. KHI Philanthropy KHI has been significant in providing ongoing global support and humanitarian aid. Hoyos frequently travels to the country to provide outreach and her philanthropic and business endeavors are covered heavily in both print and digital media. Additionally, she and her executive team of Chief Operations Officer - Tiffany Edwards, CFRE and Team Leader - Juan Restrepo are heavily involved in the implementation of philanthropic projects, with a focus on domestic violence, equity, editorial discrimination, diversity and inclusion, poverty alleviation, and youth initiatives. KHI provides leadership support and resources for Milagros Day, the NAACP, and the Diplomats Diversi-Tea Gala. Hoyos is one of the co-founders of Milagros Day with Dawn Diaz. The KHI Milagros Day collaboration was featured in Huffington Post, on CBS, and NBC. KHI Ambassadors Program KHI offers and ambassadors training program to help individuals become entrepreneurs and motivational speakers with the opportunity to learn and expand their knowledge with hands on training from KHI executive team members and volunteers. KHI Consulting KHI Consulting works with many corporate, nonprofit, and government entities on their marketing, human resources, training and development, equity, fund development, and educational programs. KHI Consulting is known for aiding entrepreneurs with corporate and nonprofit growth and expansion strategies, breaking through barriers to progress, and creating partnerships. Media KHI provides over 1000 hours of training content – originating for KHI’s executive management team across all forms of media including TV, audio, fixed media, and mobile. The company’s multimedia product offerings include programming such as the Magic of Manifestation, Living Your Purpose. It provides online coaching and training sessions along with on demand training programs in English and Spanish. Hoyos’ first book, Purpose: The Ultimate Quest, was published by Post Hill Press and distributed through Simon and Schuster. The book's Foreward was written by Ambassador April Sutton, founder of the Diplomats Diversi-Tea Gala and youngest Inductee into the Broadcasters Hall of Fame. Hoyos and the transformational work of KHI has been covered on Fox News, CNN, and the United Nations. References https://www.huffingtonpost.com/amber-browningcoyle/survivors-of-domestic-violence-walk-for-change_b_7253448.html https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/05/12/domestic-violence-victims... http://nbclatino.com/2013/05/06/latina-leaders-turning-abuse-into-success/#s:milagrosday4 https://miamidiario.com/mariposa-films-presenta-historias-de-grandes-mujeres-en-miami/ https://www.prlog.org/12403251-milagros-day-worldwide-celebrates-five-years-of-turning-abuse-into- www.lacosmopolatina.com/karen-hoyos https://vdocuments.site/impact-positive-change-magazine-mar-issue.html https://www.karenhoyos.com/ https://posthillpress.com/book/purpose-the-ultimate-quest https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Purpose/Karen-Hoyos/9781682618073

— Preceding unsigned comment added by April2019 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@April2019: You have asked the exact same question at the AFC Help Desk, so I doubt you'll get an answer here. In future, never type in capital letters. We regard it as SHOUTING!, yet ironically it won't get you more noticed. Please also, in future, sign every talk page post with four keyboard tildes right at the very end (like this:~~~~) Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Getting an article approved

Hello, I am Veronicah

I am really looking for the day I will get an article accepted and approved by Wikipedia. I have submitted several and every time I get a decline message. So disapointing. but I am so much into this and I need to get the skills to get an article approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkangethe (talk • contribs) 01:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, @Vkangethe:

I have written a set of detailed but simple instructions that cover everything you need to do to write a successful article, which you can see by clicking this link. In short, all you really need to do is cite and summarize at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the subject but not dependent upon nor affiliated with nor connected to the subject.

Addressing some specific issues with the Gill draft, Gill's own profile on a site is not independent, while this article only mentions him in passing but really is not about him. This source is closer to what you need but it would be better if it was not an interview and it'd also be great if you had sources about other things he has done.

As for your other draft, there's really only two sources with one repeated. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)