Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 692

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 685 ← Archive 690 Archive 691 Archive 692 Archive 693 Archive 694 Archive 695

Approval of a profile article

With the feedback of the fellow reviewers, as per my knowledge I have followed all rules of wiki and would like to submit my 1st article in wiki, I have collected all valid source and references to validate my article. Please help me publish the article from Sandbox to wiki. RAGZU (talk) or guide me what more is required for this article to be published. its been more than 2 months now that i have left my sandbox to be published. awaiting a quick response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAGZU (talk • contribs) 06:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse. I've added a {{user sandbox}} template to make it easy for you to submit it for review when you think it is ready. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
A reviewer will be able to give feedback after you submit the draft, but I would recommend that before you submit it you try to tidy it up. There are a number of obvious problems, including:
--David Biddulph (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Further points I noticed on a quick look, RAGZU:
  • Words like "struggle" and "breakthrough" are not neutral, and should not be used. Nor should unsourced statements about the subject's mential state and motiviation ("Lack of opportunity triggered him")
  • Some of the draft is in note form, not full sentences.
  • "Due to circumstances" is meaningless, and should either be expanded (with a citation) or omitted.
  • It veers between present and past tense for no obvious reason.
Please have a look at WP:BLP. --ColinFine (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Display??

Hello, I am editing a series of pages and was wondering how I could get the little box that sometimes appears in the infobox or bottom of the page that says the next page in that series? It sounds confusing but if you look the page 1, at the top of the infobox, it allows you to click and go to page 2,3,4,5 etc. How would I get this? Thanks. Goveganplease (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Goveganplease. There are different ways to do it depending on the subject and possible use of an infobox or other templates. Different templates have different code and many don't have the feature. Which page series do you have in mind? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding PrimeHunter, I was wanting to do it with the entire series of Chinese radical pages.Goveganplease (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Goveganplease: I have used {{Succession links}} in {{Infobox Kangxi radical}}.[1] See e.g. Radical 1, Radical 2, Radical 213, Radical 214 (the last radical). Other pages wil automatically update after a while, or right away if they are purged (I purged the four examples). I didn't know a convenient way to display the symbol from the number so only the number is displayed. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Goveganplease: I now know how to display the radicals as numbered Unicode symbols but I don't know anything about Chinese or what would be appropriate to display. Should the link to Radical 214 in Radical 213 for example display as one of these options: 214, 214 (⿕), 214 ⿕, 214 (⿕), 214 ⿕, ⿕. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that they have to be displayed as symbols. I just wanted each page to link to the next in succession. Goveganplease (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

New Political Candidate sourcing

There is a new political candidate in Little Rock, AR running for congress. There are very few stories about her now, as most of the press coverage in a small state like Arkansas is devoted more to the actual goings on by the current house member. Are there any suggestions as to how to find better sources or improve the credibility of the ones given?

Eric Jemahfouz (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The smallness of the state is irrelevant. If she is elected or receives significant coverage like Jon Ossoff despite losing then she is notable enough for an article. My suggestion would be to have the article in the draftspace and then it can be published when enough sources are present. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Jemahfouz. Please begin by reading our notability guideline for politicians. Our general practice is that unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia biographies, unless coverage in reliable sources is significant, ongoing and far beyond what is common for political candidates. A better way to cover such candidates is to write an article titled something like "2018 Congressional election in the 2nd district of Arkansas" that would neutrally cover all of the candidates in the race. Then, a redirect can be created, so that anyone typing that candidate's name in the search box will be taken to that article about the race. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I need help posting because of conflict of interest

Hi My boss's bio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hotez has a lot of flags because it needs 2nd party citations etc. Another problem is that it is very poorly laid out in my opinion. I have drafted a new bio. Could someone review it and post it for me? I haven't added all the citations to my draft but if someone can review it and post it I will then add the citations. Thanks in advance for any help! Nwolf1470 Nwolf1470 (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. After you have read about conflict of interest and paid editing, the place to suggest changes to the article is Talk:Peter Hotez, supported by reliable sources. There is no point in anybody trying to review it without sources, as verifiability is one of the main pillars of Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks David! What about if I posted my draft in the Talk section and ask someone to let me know where I need citations and any other feedback? I'm adding citations now but that would be very helpful. Nwolf1470 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello,, Nwolf1470. If you're talking about putting in citations after you've written the text, then I fear you're going about it backwards. You need to start with the citations: forget every single thing you know about the subject and write a summary of only what is in the sources. This is even more crucial when you have inside knowledge of the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Can not get aproved my article

Hello, I made an article about music festival. Once it was declined, and I reedited it, and now it has been waiting for new revision for 18 days. Should I still wait, or could make some steps in order to get it published? Thank you!

The link to the draft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Avant_Festival

All the best,

Max Makasinych (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you resolve the issues that caused it be declined last time? The backlog for review is quite long currently, so you can't do anything to speed it up. Just make sure you have added as much information as possible, in an appropriate tone. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Rewording Draft:Republic (crowdfunding platform) to be more neutral and less commercial

I'm working on the aforementioned article, with COI as a paid agent for the subject.

My most recent submission is rejected on grounds of being biased and commercial. I can understand that I introduce biases into the article that I cannot be aware of. I would love to hear about how to rephrase the draft to make it less biased and less promotional.

Thank you all very much :D It feels so nice to learn my way around Wikipedia. I feel like I will try to contribute to Wikipedia more, now that this avenue has opened up for me.

Vinhloc30796 (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There are tags on the page

There are many tags on the page I have been working on and do not understand what the problem is and how to get the tags off. It looks really bad!

Page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Tate

Thank you Cheri Brown (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cheri Brown: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see three tags on the page. The first one indicates that the biography you have written needs additional citations to verify the information given. The second indicates that most of the citations/references given are from primary sources; that is, sources directly related to the person being written about, such as their own words, own website, or anything from them directly(such as an interview transcript). Please click on and read WP:PRIMARY; on Wikipedia, primary sources are only acceptable in certain circumstances, and they do not establish notability. Only independent reliable sources from third parties are acceptable for establishing notability. This would be things like news reports, independent reviews, or anything not authored by someone associated with the article subject.
The last tag indicates that someone believes that you have a close connection to the article subject. I haven't yet done enough research to know what that is, but if you are in any way associated with Kent Tate, it is what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest(please read about it at WP:COI). It is usually difficult(though not impossible) for those who have a conflict of interest to write objectively and with the neutral point of view that Wikipedia requires. If you have a conflict of interest, you need to declare that, either on the article talk page, or your user page. If you work for Kent Tate, or are otherwise paid to edit Wikipedia, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to read and comply with the paid editing policy at WP:PAID.
In order to remove the yellow tags from the article, those issues need to be resolved.
I apologize for giving you lots of information, but I hope this helps you. If you have further questions, please add them to this section. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I would add that the notability guidelines for artists can be found at WP:ARTIST. All articles on artists must meet at least one of the guidelines listed there. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Please note that CB has also asked about this at Wikipedia:Help desk#Flags on page - unable to communicate with users. I am not complaining as I think CB is trying to get as much info as possible. I just want to make sure that those responding don't wind up giving conflicting answers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

account ranking

Hello everyone, I have joined Wikipedia 4 days ago and I wondering how long it takes to become a full editor i.e no waiting time or being able to revert changes. Is this gained through good edits, or just time spent editing Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. Penguin2233 (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse, Penguin2233. You became a full editor when you began contributing to Wikipedia. After at least four days and at least ten edits, you will become autoconfirmed, which will give you additional powers, such as the ability to edit semi-protected articles and create new articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Special:Log/Penguin2233 shows your account is only 3 days old so it takes another day. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Your help for me is highly appreciated. Penguin2233 (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

What is a 'correct' article?

What generally classifies as a "correct" article?Dylan Smithson (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dylan Smithson and welcome to the Teahouse.
Your question seems to involve a category error. Wikipedia articles are as "correct" as we are able to make them. They are never considered completely finished nor beyond possibility of improvement. Articles that pass "Good article" or "Featured article" review are closer to ideal than most run-of-the-mill articles, but may still be improved. There are attempts at articles that may well be considered incorrect: ones whose subject does not meet the standard of notability or ones that are either unsupported by references or whose references do not verify the statements in the article. Usually, these inadequate articles will be tagged for their deficiencies or even deleted.
Does this help answer your question? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

talk page glitch

Why is this comment not visible?

BTW, this Teahouse talk page has become very difficult to use because it can only be edited (at first) using the visual editor, which is a mess on my Galaxy Tab S2. E.g. trying to click on my text here makes it disappear by activating the links that it's superimposed on e.g. related changes--Espoo (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Espoo. Fixed in [2]. A user wrote {{hat}} instead of {{hab}} at the end of a collapsed section. I don't have a Galaxy Tab but I assume it can use source editing if you make the right selection at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, or disable "Automatically enable all new beta features" and "New wikitext mode" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia account security

For the first time that I can recall, I have six "There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password" notices. I wasn't attempting to log in from a different than usual device, so clearly someone is doing me the favor of checking the security of my password. I'm not seeing this specific message listed at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Login_notifications . Obviously, I should review my overall security and look at ways to improve it. Anyone know why I received six individual notices without numbers rather than a single one with numbers? Anything going on in general causing multiple accounts to get such messages? Other comments and suggestions welcome. - Ronz (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. The notifications were introduced in 2017. I don't know the details but there are some settings at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo if you don't want them. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Uploading images

I have loaded an image to wikimedia, but cannot find out how to place it in the relevant Wikipedia article.

Help?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRAS (talk • contribs) 09:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, FRAS. Welcome to the Teahouse (or perhaps, 'train station cafe' as you might prefer to call it). I'm assuming you are referring to this image you've just uploaded? If so, look just above the picture, and beneath the filename where you'll see a line of five small links. Look for the link with the tiny Wikipedia 'W' logo and "Use this file". Click it and select the text offered to Use this file on a Wiki as a Thumbnail. (The convention is always to add an image as a thumbnail, no matter how much you'd love to make it larger.) Go to the Wikipedia page you want to add it to (e.g.Automatic Warning System) and edit the page (ie click the tab labelled Edit Source). Scroll down to the section you'd like to add it to, and paste in the text at the very top of that section. By default, this adds the thumbnail picture and its caption on the right side of the page. To change the caption text, just edit the text to the right of the vertical bar - or pipe. Don't change the filename.jpg text itself or the image link will be broken. There are some useful links on this help page: Wikipedia:Images. If you use the Visual Editor (which is a bit more WYSIWYG, though I'm not so familiar with it myself), you once again navigate to the section where the image is needed, then, in the editing toolbar, click Insert > Media. At the search bar in the popup that then appears, type the keyword to search for certain image types, or just type in the filename of your image you've already chosen from Commons. Select the image and then click 'Use this image'. Before inserting it you'll be prompted to add a caption. Captions can include hyperlinks, but that's probably best left for another time. I hope this helps. Regards from the UK Nick Moyes (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox addition and publishing the article guideline

How to add the info box to my article ? also how can I know my article is valid with no mistakes, I can't find a proper guide to follow. the article is about a company, I want it to be published by the company name, is that possible from a personal profile to do ? I have all the authorization to publish, I am the Marketing Manager of the company. Ayah Osama (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do not waste volunteers time by asking the same question both here and at the WP:Help desk - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Ayah Osama. Since I am an administrator, I can read your deleted sandbox draft, which was completely unacceptable for this encyclopedia. It was written in the first person plural, "We do this" and "we do that". The language was overtly promotional, praising the company and its services. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and companies are not allowed to submit marketing brochures or "profiles" masquerading as articles. Start by reading about conflict of interest and fully complying with our policies on paid editing. Then study the neutral point of view until you understand it thoroughly. Go on to read Your first article and use the Articles for creation process if you want to start all over and try to write a real encyclopedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a move

Hello there, I'm editing an article on a rifle, and it's referred to by an American collector name. I believe the article should be renamed to the original (Dutch) name, as is done with other foreign rifles. I've created a {{subst:requested move ... etc.}} thingy in the talk page, now what? Do I wait, or vote on it? Not a lot of people edit this page.

It's concerning this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Mannlicher

Thom430 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Thom430: You don't need to vote, since your move request indicates that you think the article should be moved to a different title. A bot has listed the request under today's date at WP:RM, so the discussion should attract editors who monitor requested moves (I see that one has commented already). Deor (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Post-move redirects

In a case like this Elizabeth Tyler (KKK organizer), which I just moved to Mary Elizabeth Tyler per WP:ATDAB, is it possible to clean up the existing wikilinks somehow or would it have to be done manually? Seraphim System (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: As far as I know, it must be done manually. But looking at What Links Here, it seems there are only about 4 pages in Article space that link to the old name, so it shouldn't be too much work to change it if you think that needs to be done. RudolfRed (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Seraphim System (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Ability to search for articles in my Wiki contributions?

Can I input a name of an article in my Contributions and see if I've made any edits on that article? The Verified Cactus 100% 01:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

You can use the tool available at [3] to search for a specific user's contributions to a specific page. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 02:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 22:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

wiki article for ' Tibet Relief Fund'

Wiki article for the above article is declined under notability requirement. But this organization is very important, and I think, it is unfair to decline it. Tibetan population is very small, and therefore, it is only natural that mentions in the internet will be fewer. I think there should be some sort of waiver or mitigation for pages like this. Otherwise, countries with big population will have all the cakes. I tried to set up notable pages for Tibetan singers. but often refused! very unfair. so, what can be done to make the wiki page for 'Tibet Relief Fund' a reality?Tapton.finley (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tapton.finley: I'm afraid the notability requirements on English Wikipedia are the same no matter where the organisation (or person) is from. However, you should know that a source does not have to be online, and it does not have to be in English. The sources have to meet these criteria, though. (I have not looked at your draft so I don't have any opinion on whether it might in fact be notable.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tapton.finley: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You do speak to important systemic bias issues that Wikipedia has. However, this does not change the important sourcing requirements that we have, as if it did, it would be difficult to maintain the standards that we have. You may not be aware that sources need not be online, as long as they are independent and verifiable. Books or any printed media are completely acceptable.
I do see in your draft several citations to the organization's website; these are primary sources and do not establish notability. If you haven't already, please read WP:ORG to learn more about notability and what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tapton.finley:. I have done a bit of research and did not find much in the press to support an article on the Tibet Relief Fund. I think it was founded by the Tibet Society in 1959. You may be able to write an article on the Tibet Society (http://www.tibetsociety.com/content/blogcategory/16/30/) with the fund as a section therein --- caution; you will need secondary sources. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Should this page exist?

This page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sombai) looks like an advertisement. I'm not sure if it should be edited or what. Whatbitme (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Whatbitme: yes because of, the page was passed to reviewers eyes when it was created and the present edit revision is checked by a volunteer. But one more think that I didn't found any of advert on it. Regards (HINDWIKI • CHAT 14:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC))
Hello, Whatbitme. If you think that an article can be improved, you are welcome to be bold and edit it, or to tag it for cleanup, or do nominate it for deletion if you think that it cannot be saved. I think there are a few words in Sombai that could be improved, but I don't think it reads as particularly promotional.
[[U|HindWIKI}}, why do you say it has been passed to reviewers eyes? I can see that several people have worked on it, but I don't see any evidence of a formal review. --ColinFine (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Pinging HindWIKI, as ColinFine's mention is malformed. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I see that Many of revisions in the page by volunteers, which have reviewer's right. and this page was created in 2015 and it is seemed likely reviewed. this is my fault that I didn't invite this user to improve it. Regards HINDWIKI • CHAT 01:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it okay to use the redirect command when experimenting with personal Wikipedia Sandbox?

I tried doing a search through the archives to find an answer to my question, but didn't see anything. If I'm playing around with my personal Wikipedia Sandbox, would entering this code

"nameofsomething" redirects here. For other uses, see nameofsomething (disambiguation).

be disruptive to a legitimate Wikipedia page? (Entering the word drunk for example, in place of nameofsomething)?

Thank you

Beauty School Dropout (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Beauty School Dropout and welcome to the Teahouse.
The {{redirect}} template that you are thinking of does not redirect anything. It only affects the page it is transcluded on. You can safely experiment with it in your sandbox to see how the various parameters change how it looks on the page. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


Thank you! Beauty School Dropout (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

My Article was denied immediately after I submitted it from my sandbox for approval

It reads that my SandBox Username may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained. I am new here so I am really not sure what this means?


Kasia Kaoir (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kasia Kaoir: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It doesn't appear to me that you formally submitted your sandbox for approval as a draft, but another user tagged it as vandalism for speedy deletion. Unless that user knows something I don't, it doesn't appear to be vandalism, so I removed the tag. However, your draft is a long way from being able to be placed in the encyclopedia. It does not have independent reliable sources indicating how the article subject is notable. It doesn't have any sources at all, for that matter. You have dived right into article creation, which is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia. I would encourage you to read Your First Article to learn what is being looked for, and perhaps to take some time making edits to existing articles to learn how Wikipedia operates before attempting to submit a draft. You may find it easier to use Articles for Creation to do so, which will give you feedback from a reviewer. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah...there is something (that may not be broadly elucidated upon), that lead to my tagging.But, anyways, I will extend AGF and keep an eye out.Winged Blades Godric 14:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Power to the People: Black Panthers at 50 title change/page move?

Hello Teahouse hosts!

I was working along happily, making improvements to the Power to the People: Black Panthers at 50 article, when I suddenly realized the article should be called All Power to the People: Black Panthers at 50 as that is the actual title of the exhibit. I'd like some guidance on how to correct this problem.

Thank you in advance for your help Circa73 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I've moved it for you, but in the future WP:MOVE should be useful. (It's funny, we have almost exactly the same number of edits... I know it's irrelevant, but I just had to mention it.) -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I attended that exhibit at the Oakland Museum of California, Circa73, and enjoyed it very much. Thank you for writing an article about it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi A lad insane. I appreciate your moving the page and also the link to the WP:MOVE article! I'll give it a try on my own next time. Wow, I guess my edits are adding up...I'm sort of a dilettante editor; sometimes I don't edit for months, but then I'll have a burst of editing-energy again. I've got some things under my belt, but there's always something to learn:)Circa73 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Circa73: I'm the same way... happy to help =D -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cullen328 Thanks for your enthusiastic response to the All Power to the People: Black Panthers at 50 article! Did you by any chance take any pictures of the exhibit!? I'd love love to have one on the page;)Circa73 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did take photos, Circa73. I will try to find them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

What things might revoke my editing rights without the usual mis-conduct like profanity or fake news?

I recently edited the Sino-Indian War article by updating it with the 2017 conflict. I added the link to its wikipedia article and wrote just a couple of sentences in the summary as I thought the article itself had sufficient citations and source material and that no other conflict was given references in the summary- their own articles had all the necessary references. Within a few minutes my edits were reverted and a message was left on my talk page saying " Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. Adding unsourced content in a contentious topic will certainly lead to losing your editing privilege. Consider this your first warning. Thanks. " I do not want to get my editing privileges suspended over something I don't fully understand. Can someone help me here? I don't know what all un-obvious things might get my previleges suspended. Thanks.

Nishant.sankhe (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nishant.sankhe, and welcome to the Teahouse. Each article needs to be independently verifiable. If you add information to some other article, please bring the citations with you, if you are confident that they verify the content you just added. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! What other not-so-obvious things might get my rights suspended? What else should I be alert about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishant.sankhe (talk • contribs) 19:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Nishant.sankhe. Editors are blocked when it is necessary to prevent disruption of the encyclopedia. Please read Wikipedia:Blocking policy for a detailed explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 19:22, November 19, 2017 (UTC)‎
I reviewed your edit. You tried to add content about a 2017 standoff between Chinese and Indian troops to an article about a war that took place in 1962 and resulted in thousands of deaths. The 2017 incident resulted in no casualties and it certainly does not belong in an article about a war that took place 55 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 19:31, November 19, 2017 (UTC)

Well to be fair, it was in a small section titled " Future conflicts". And as far as I understand 2017 is a future conflict and I edited it in the proper section. But I am a new user and always ready to learn. It would be really appreciated if you just took one more glance and tell me what I did wrong and what to keep in mind for further edits? Thanks. Nishant.sankhe (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Alex Shih, who issued the warning. – Joe (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Something strange is going on. I (Cullen328) actually wrote the two passages that are signed by Bonadea. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, your posts did not show up, so I closed a tag, and suddenly my signature was added to your posts... it's all very strange. I added the unsigned template just now with your name, but you might want to fix it with your own signature. I'll withdraw gracefully before I cause any further confusion. --bonadea contributions talk 19:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's leave things as they are. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Not that strange, as the ~~~~ was being commented out as a result of the accidental removal of ">", closing that tag activates the signature to the last revision editor (Bonadea). In regards to the original poster, my warning was mainly in response to the post left on my talk page. Usually I am in favor of being more lenient, but in extremely contentious topics there are simply little rooms for error. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned on your talk page.. I added a link to the wikipedia article which was thoroughly referenced. The only unreferenced thing was the summary which was that way because the 1967 and 1987 incidents weren't either. Shouldn't you be deleting their summary as well for being unreferenced?I am not inciting an edit war. Don't want one. I am new here and all I want is advices, not swift rebuttals. Any help is appreciated. ThanksNishant.sankhe (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Nishant.sankhe, the proper place to make your case for adding this content is Talk:Sino-Indian War. I find it hard to see how this 2017 content belongs in an article about a war that took place 55 years ago. As for the 1967 and 1987 confrontations, it depends entirely on whether reliable sources explicitly connect them with the 1962 war. There are other articles about the troubled relationship between India and China where this content might better belong. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Improving appeal for donations

I would like to give an impuls about improving the appeal for donations and didn't find any other kontact form fitting my purpose.

It woult be wise to use the text of the appeal for donations to line out why it's important to donate if you can. Most people know, that it's easy to ignore the appeal, and it's not very motivating to say that most people do ignore the appeal (also see [1] for that matter). In my oppinion it would be helpfull, to answer the unspokes question of many „non - donating people“: „why should I donate (=~ pay) for a free encyclopedia, when it's purpose is to make knowlegde free, NOT paid?!“

I would address this by saying something like:

„If you can afford it, it is important to donate so that those people who can not afford giving money can still access free knowledge“ So „It's you helping to keep the information on Wikipedia freely avialable for all the others who don't have money“

And normally it's best to keep the appeal as short as possible, otherwise many people don't read the whole „Text“ of 3 Sentenses.

My intention is only the help the Wikipedia community, and motivate other people who can afford it to help with their Donations.

I would be very happy, to see an improved appeal for donations (not for me though, I did already donate ;)


Alexander Wartmann (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility

Moved from Ref Desk μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alexander. The English Wikipedia community is not actually directly involved in the donation appeals. They are handled by the Wikimedia Foundation on behalf of all WMF projects. You can read about the latest round of fundraising and give your feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation website. – Joe (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Alexander Wartmann: Adding to what Joe has said, you may find this page of FAQs of interest, and you can always email the Foundation directly about fund-raising matters at donate@wikimedia.org if you wish. Your support and donations really are appreciated. Everyone here is an unpaid volunteer, as are the host of editors who create content on this and other language Wikis around the world.  The cost of maintaining its servers, supporting education and outreach projects into world-wide communities, and encouraging volunteers to contribute to develop these sites is considerable. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Help for brainstorming a particular template for WikiProject Law Enforcement

I'm asking here 'cause the wikiproject page is really dead. Although I advocate for changing to inactive, another matter is that someone raised the idea of making an infobox for law enforcement units such as SWAT-type units since the military unit infobox is used for them. I would agree, except I need feedback and no one hangs around there. Ominae (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Ominae, why? Police department are not generally notable; sub units of police departments even less so. Infoboxes are solely intended to head articles. Why create an Infobox that virtually won't be used? John from Idegon (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. This is what the guy said though. Ominae (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ominae and John from Idegon: How many articles are there about law enforcement units? --Thnidu (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Category:Law enforcement agencies may be a starting point? --David Biddulph (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I thought so too, David Biddulph, but I quailed at the apparent size of the tree. --Thnidu (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I need help

Im new and do not know a good wiki to start at can someone give me a good one, if so thank you Tegan001234567890 (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tegan001234567890. If you are looking for tasks that need to be done to improve the encyclopedia, please take a look at the Community portal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

References for creating new articles

What constitutes an article topic being "notable"? Does the article have to be about someone who is famous? What type of references are required. If I'd like to create an article on a restaurant that my be local or a music band that my not be in the Billboard top 100, is there any type of stipulations on creating these types of articles?Sweetbliss79 (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You'll find the definition at WP:Notable. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Notability guidelines for bands are at WP:BAND. 331dot (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Sweetbliss79. We do not have a notability guideline specifically for restaurants, so the General notability guideline applies. I have been involved with a lot of discussions about restaurants, and here are my observations: Because local newspapers review pretty much every local restaurant, most experienced editors will consider this routine coverage to be inadequate to establish notability. If a restaurant has won a Michelin star or a James Beard award or another highly prestigious national award, that is a positive sign. If the restaurant has been reviewed in depth by prestigious newspapers and magazines based hundreds or thousands of miles away, then that is a very positive sign. Take a look at the references for Whoa Nellie Deli, an article I wrote about an unusual restaurant in a remote part of California. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

How do I look at what someone has written in their own sandbox to do a peer review

I am trying to find a classmates sandbox article to do a peer review, but I cant find it at all. can you help me? SonnyGreenbush (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SonnyGreenbush. Go to your classmates user page, and click "User contributions" in the left hand menu. You can see a list of their edits, and their sandbox will be on that list if they have edited it. For example, I just took a look at your contributions and saw that you have recently edited User:SonnyGreenbush/sandbox. 05:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Searching "spoon theory" should not redirect to "ego depletion"

Currently, searching the term "spoon theory" redirects to the page ego depletion. In the Talk page for ego depletion, I mention why this is misleading and unhelpful.

I do not know how to delete a redirect, and I am not sure that is the best solution. It is probably the best solution. Searching for "spoon theory" should either inform the user that the page does not exist, or it should have a short article mentioning the essay that coined the term spoon theory. I am doubtful that the topic meets the notability guidelines, but the metaphor of spoons is increasingly common. Fluoborate (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The article has now been restored. Dbfirs 11:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

How to prevent edit wars?

I honestly tried to improve a lemma about a field I wrote a PhD on, so I could be considered an expert in. A user reversed my contribution and sent me some unfriendly comments. I am not prepared to write my contributions again. How do I resolve this conflict? Perhaps my contribution was not "ideal", but the original text was definitely wrong. Rbakels (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rbakels: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are in a content dispute with another editor, you should first attempt to discuss the matter with them to reach a resolution on the article talk page. If that does not resolve the matter, then there are dispute resolution procedures available which you can find at WP:DR. That said I don't see how the other user was rude to you. Remember that it is hard for text communication to convey emotion and that everyone should assume good faith. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reaction. Rude? The comment was "You seem to have replaced a perfectly sensible description of the idea of an invention with a mis-typed, US-centric screed describing inventions as tricks." I had to look up the word "screed" in a (language) dictionary, and I found it is a negative term. Rejecting my explanation (that an invention basically is a "tric") with no other comment that it would be "US-centric" does not help the debate either. Rbakels (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Rbakels. Expert editors are welcome on Wikipedia, but sometimes have difficulty adapting their approach and expectations to the special requirements of Wikipedia. I suggest you have a look at Expert editors.
By the way, your contribution is not lost - it is there in the history of the article. If the consensus you reach by discussing with other editors is that your contribution (or part of it) would be valuable in the article, then you, or somebody else, can retrieve your text and use it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Since none linked to it, the edit in question seems to be that one. I kind-of agree with the reversion rationale (given on the OP's talkpage). I would guess that replacing the lead sentence by "an invention is basically a trick" is what angered the reverter - this may be true, but our article Star does not start by "a star is basically a sun".
I cannot provide a guideline to that effect, but the art of the lead is basically to make the topic as simple as possible, but not simpler. Your analogy is not obvious to understand (maybe the Dutch word for "trick" has more meaning than in English?), and anyways analogies are not really desirable in the lead. Remember that since we can link articles together, it is not such a big problem to use a technical term; it is actually better to use a wikilinked technical term that is precise that an imprecise layman term (and better yet to use a precise layman term, but that is not always available).
Well, now that I look at our article star, A star is a luminous sphere of plasma held together by its own gravity is probably a step to far in the opposite direction of techno-encyclopedic language, but that gives you the idea. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it worthwhile to create an entry if the same topic is included in Wikibooks project

I am trying to add a new entry of "glutamine addiction" to Wikipedia, but I found out an article in Wikibooks discussing the exactly same topic, entitled Glutamine Addiction in Cancer. So shall I proceed to write a new entry in Wikipedia? Peiyangium (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Peiyangium. Wikibooks is a completely separate project that creates free textbooks for teaching purposes. Textbooks are very different from encyclopedia articles, are written in a different style for a different audience. That project also has different editorial standards. There is no reason why you cannot write a Wikipedia article, assuming that the topic is notable and that you follow our policies and guidelines. I recommend that you read Your first article for some excellent advice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen328! That is very helpful! Peiyangium (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Creating pages for musicians and artists

Hello - complete newbie here, getting lost in the rabbit hole of Wikipedia, and would appreciate some help please. I'd like to create and maintain pages for some notable artists that I work with. One already has a Wiki - Tony Momrelle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Momrelle), which I have just made my very first edit to (and I really hope it's okay...). The other band, Lydian Collective, does not yet have a Wiki, and I'd like to create a page but I understand that:

a) I apparently may have a COI because I work for them doing their social media (I'm not 100% sure, though, how I disclose this and what it actually means for the pages in question) b) I need to wait 92 hours before I can create my first page and must have 10 edits under my belt

Both artists are on iTunes, Spotify & all other online stores, so there's no question of notability (I don't think?). I'm honestly getting lost in all of the Wiki articles that I'm meant to read in order to get this information up on here, and would like to know if anyone has experience with getting artist/musician pages online, and whether there's a template that I can follow which will ensure it gets approved? I literally just want to put biographical and factual discography information on here.

Would very much appreciate some help. Thank you. AlexandraK1234 (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@AlexandraK1234: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are correct that you have a COI, if you haven't already, please review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI which also has information on how to declare one. If you are paid for your work, you are also required to read and comply with the paid editing policy at WP:PAID(this is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are a paid editor).
Having music available for sale online is not in and of itself evidence of notability, as it is not difficult to post music online. Wikipedia uses notability as a test as to whether a subject merits an article. In the case of musicians/bands, the notability guidelines for them are listed at WP:BAND. A musician/band must meet at least one of them in order to merit an article, as shown with independent reliable sources. As you have a COI, you should use Articles for Creation to create new articles, and for existing articles you should suggest changes on the relevant article talk page(click "Talk" at the top of the article you are viewing, then edit normally). 331dot (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @331dot - I'm sorry, totally new to this, and actually I'm finding it's pretty confusing (mainly because the sheer volume of guidelines a lot to take in). I'm not being paid specifically to update Wiki, just to do social media, but I'm updating Wiki because I think they should have accurate Wiki pages (Spotify pulls Wiki data, for example, onto Artist 'about' pages). I don't want to ruin any pages or post anything I shouldn't, so I've reached out to my networks to see if I know any established Wiki editors who might be able to help. Are there any Wiki editors that regularly help out with getting accurate content onto pages for others, who might be interested in helping out here? Thanks again, A AlexandraK1234 (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@AlexandraK1234: I'm not being paid specifically to update [Wikipedia]... - well, you might still be a paid editor. If you are paid to update Spotify, and you need to update Wikipedia for that, then for our purposes you are paid to edit Wikipedia. Basically, if you make your proposed Wikipedia edits during your work hours and your boss is happy with that, it is paid editing.
Fortunately, you are still allowed to edit. Just make the appropriate disclaimer as described at WP:PAID.
Oh, and not that anyone cares, but wiki is not synonymous with Wikipedia.TigraanClick here to contact me 12:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Small note: you designated the edit you made to Tony's article as minor when it was definitely not minor. Minor is more like correcting spelling of a word. David notMD (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
AlexandraK1234 (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@AlexandraK1234: I'm a newby here too (2 months) and I started out very much as you have, wanting to create a page about something I was interested in but for which also had a conflict of interest. My first 'proposed page' was - with very good justification - quickly rejected and even deleted shortly afterwards. In the 'rejection response', I received links to some essential principles, rules and tips. I've learned a whole lot about Wikipedia (and the Wikimedia foundation) since then. The page I was interested in creating has now been published (in Dutch) with the support of a Wikipedia coach and 2 independent reviewers/contributors. I'm still far from being an experienced Wikipedia editor/coach but I've been through the initial learning curve. I've managed to find my way through the Rabbit Hole;) In the past 2 months, my perspective of Wikipedia (and the Wikimedia foundation) has shifted 180 degree. I started out with the question 'what can Wikipedia do for me/us". My involvement now centers on the question "what can I do to help the Wikimedia foundation and its various projects (including Wikipedia)"? If I can help you with what you'd like to do on Wikipedia, I'd happy to do so. Not as a coach (I don't have nearly enough knowledge/experience) but just as a newby who's been through the hoop. I can thoroughly recommend finding a Wikipedia coach! My coach has been invaluable.

Mikemorrell49 (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

links allowed?

I am creating a page for a music band. It's in the editing phase: Ruin (punk band). I want to link to a few of their early songs. Is it allowed to include YouTube, Spotify, and/or Bandcamp links?

Thanks. Eliswinterabend (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Eliswinterabend. The answer is, generally not: see WP:EL for the (quite stringent) restrictions on what external links are allowed. Looking at Draft:Ruin (punk bank), I wonder if you have read your first article: if not, I recommend doing so. It looks to me that you have started the difficult task of writing a new article backwards, (as most inexperienced editors do). Citations to independent reliable published sources are not a nice-to-have, that can be added after writing: they are the essential basis, without which there can be no article. Wikipedia is not really interested in what the band say, or even what they have recorded, and it is certainly not interested in what you (or I, or any other random person on the Internet) know, or think, about them: it is only interested in what people who have no connection to them have published about them, and that is what you should base the article on. --ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm being bullied via a page

Dear Tearoom, a page has been set up abut me (Polly Clark) which of course I don't mind, but the person seems to have set it up in order to present me negatively, by using non-neutral terms and not including full information. This has persisted despite my publisher making amendments. I object to the word 'chequered' being used to describe me in the way it is on this page: the full quote, where I describe my career as chequered myself, and then go on include varied jobs should be included if the author wishes to use the word. The author has changed the context to make my career sound shady. Also, the author describes my review coverage as 'mixed' and then highlighted my single bad review. This is not neutral language, as I understand it from your own guidelines below. I do not mind the presence of the bad review (it is in the public domain) but its prominence is being distorted. There is malice behind this page, and as this is being repeated it is bullying. Please can you help. Thank you, Polly Clark

I have now made amendments to the page, which remove the non-neutral references, but keep the review quote.

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. 81.154.82.160 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:Deb. GMGtalk 15:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking at the article (Polly Clark) (and its refs), it seems to focus almost exclusively on Larchfield. I created a redirect at Larchfield, but maybe it should be the other way around (i.e. the article at Larchfield and Polly Clark redirecting to it). Also, the zookeeper stuff does not look very relevant (even in the BLP article). TigraanClick here to contact me 16:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


Sorry, this really isn't the place for the below comment. I would just refer you, 81.154.82.160, to the conflict of interest guidelines. Deb (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC) :What a load of nonsense from 81.154.82.160. I created a page for an emerging author under the umbrella of the "Women in Red" project. I did my best to make it NPOV, mentioning that it had received mixed reviews - which is true. Under the pretence of making it "fairer", an anon removed all mention of negative reviews and added long quotes from the positive ones, also claiming that "'chequered' - the term used by Clark herself in an interview - is "a loaded, negative description", whilst adding the term "widely-acclaimed". If this really is Polly Clark writing above, she needs to check out how Wikipedia works before throwing around completely unfounded accusations of "malice" and "bullying". Deb (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

creating a page

The songwriter, Kyle Fishman, is mentioned on several songs on Wikipedia... how do I create a Wiki page for Kyle Fishman and link back to the songs?LenFishman (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello LenFishman and welcome to the Teahouse. You have already created the article here Draft:Kyle Fishman. I declined it because the references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. You may also have what we call a conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if table should be included in article

Was looking over [[4]] and noticed the tables in [[5]] seemed to be copy pasted from some other source and didn't format properly. I began to work on finding a source for the table and transferring it over, but I began to wonder if it is appropriate to include such a detailed table within the article since it is about a politician, not the elections themselves, ignoring any issues with organization of content, etc. (I found a source for one of the tables, though it doesn't exactly match all the fields, on page 328 of [6] to see exactly what I'm asking about) Juan el Demografo (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Juan el Demografo and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you were right in your concerns, and I note that a helpful copy editor has been hard at work today in improving the article on S. P. Singh Baghel and removing irrelevant content. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

My declination of article creation

Why was my arcticle declined? I worked quite hard on this and I am very dissapointed. I had citations and links and everything so why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WidgetFan1234 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi WidgetFan1234. Welcome to the teahouse. I'm afraid your article Draft:Typical Gamer falls far short of the requirements of an encyclopaedia article, as was explained in some detail when your draft was initially rejected today. I suggest you follow the links in that advice, as well as read this guide to newcomers: Wikipedia:Your first article. You are free to improve and resubmit it when you have done that. I see you have asked a similar question at WP:AFC, so I wont expand on it here, too. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Help please!

Hi team, Hope you're well.

I need your help. I created a profile for Dr. David J. Chao last week. Actually he asked me to create his profile since he does not have the skills or time.

I received an email today that his profile has not been accepted since the references don't have significant coverage (but only mere mentions). To be approved by Wiki...we will need reliable sources to be added. Could you please look at my profile and let me know if this is the only reason why the profile was rejected. What if I ask Dr. David Chao to send me more articles that include his name and look more reliable...is this going to help? What is your advice? Are the references the only reason the profile was rejected or there are some other things that were not correct?? Please come back to me, I will really appreciate your help. Mvasileva (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Mvasileva, you must have reliable, independent sources like magazine articles on your subject and they have to be mostly or entirely about the subject. Also, pages in the Wikipedia mainspace are articles, not profiles. We really don't care what somebody says about themselves, because you can look that up on Facebook. Plus, if you are working for the guy you are writing about, you have a conflict of interest and should declare that. White Arabian Filly Neigh 23:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I also want to add that unless that picture at the top is a bust of David Chao, it should be removed. We only want a picture of the subject in the infobox, not something random, even if they like it. White Arabian Filly Neigh 23:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_692&oldid=1065747502"