This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.


Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Citing Pages in a Multi-Page Document vs. Only Including Said Pages in a Subset Document

I have an instance where an outside source ([]) has suggested including a cover letter and only certain pages (Page 77 and 79) in a .pdf file documenting a 'Proof of Concept' test relating to promession ([]), and I am questioning the validity of that approach, as opposed to citing those pages in the reference in the (existing) WP article, but including the whole document in a .pdf. The whole document is currently of undetermined length (I just haven't asked how long it is) and was written by an external company to the outside source. The .pdf document (whether the 3-pager or the whole thing) would be stored by Promessa and referenced by a URL in the WP article. The problems with their approach, as I see it, include:

  • The pages in the current short .pdf document mainly contain images of a test result, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of other images that may give conflicting test results.
  • WP users wanting to validate information relating to the test can't see any (unknown) context around the test that may or may not be in Pages 1-76, 78 and 80-end.

Basically, I think the whole document - currently only in paper form as I understand it - should be converted to a .pdf and included by Promessa.

ADDENDUM: What a complete and utter waste of time Wikipedia's archiving bot (Munninbot) makes of this Teahouse sometimes. It archived my question (above) "because there was no discussion for a few days" when I entered it on May 14 and it's only May 16 now (i.e. a "couple of days" is not "a few days"). I'm dealing with a company in Sweden re this matter and am waiting on a related response to an email I sent to them on the 14th, Marchjuly's first response gave me lots to look up, I'm not full time on this and I sleep sometimes. And why is MY question archived anyway? I see questions that have been dormant since May 10!

What's the hurry re archiving after only 2 days (or even "a few days" when the last response has questions)? Timing of this bot should be corrected. BrettA343 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC) BrettA343 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly's response from Archive added by BrettA343.

Hi BrettA343. Your question seems to be a mix of multiple questions involving various policies and guidelines, so I'm not sure what you're trying to ask or where to start. Sources cited in Wikipedia articles need to meet WP:RS and not be WP:UNDUE. If a source is deemed reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, all that it needs to be is published and accessible so that anyone who wants to verify the accuracy of the source can do so. The source doesn't need to be readily available online and it can even be behind a WP:PAYWALL or otherwise cost a fee to see as long as it can be verified by someone who wants to do so; so, there's no need to upload an entire document or link to an entire document for verification purposes as long as it's possible to verify in other ways as explained in WP:SAYWHERE. Being available online and in its entirety certainly makes a source easier to assess, but it's not something that's required. Finally, official documents, etc. often fall under WP:PRIMARY and although they can sometimes be cited, there are limitations to how they can be used. So, the first thing you might need to do is assess the reliability of the source itself and determine whether it's a PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY source based on the the way its being used. The place to discuss such a thing would be on the relevant article's talk page or at WP:RSN. Once it's be determined whether the source is reliable, then perhaps the next thing to figure out would be to how best cite it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talkcontribs)
(edit conflict) Has the document been published by a reputable publisher, BrettA343? If not, the article probably shouldn't be citing it at all. It doesn't matter whether a resource is online or not: what matters is that it has been published, so that in principle (eg via a major library) a reader could obtain a copy.
Certain information can come from the subject's own website (see PRIMARY), but it doesn't sound as if the information in question is appropriately sourced, from your description. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, @ColinFine:, I don't know (and you don't say, though I wish you would) just what in my description gives you the idea that it isn't appropriately sourced. I'm still waiting for more than the 3 pages I got on 14 May (as I intimated, even I don't think they're appropriate for a variety of reasons), but you seem to take a harder stance than I get from reading WP:RS and the like. For instance, it states:
"Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources.", and
"The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources."
"It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."
The first quote is self-explanatory, I think, and note that the second quote says both 'online' and 'reputable party', not 'reputable publisher'. It's my understanding that the party conducting the 'Proof of Concept' tests for Promessa is indeed reliable and reputable with usable source, and definitely a third-party / independent party not affiliated with Promessa except for these tests. I'm still unclear on the exact relationship between the two, but have asked those questions. The third quote indicates to me that - as at least I would expect - online access is preferable to "a major library" (though both would be ideal), not only because many people can't readily get to a major library, but it's got to be awfully major to hold every test and report conducted in every country around the world... Sweden, in this case.
You seem to shoot them down prematurely, IMHO, while I'm just waiting to find out answers and hopefully see the whole document so I can, as WP:RS says, "use my judgement" (plus I'm writing snippets of responses timed so that my 48 hour limit doesn't run out). BrettA343 (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@BrettA343: It appears that the bot that archives this page is Lowercase sigmabot III. It looks at the User:MiszaBot/config at the top of the Teahouse code, which is set to archive after 48 hours of inactivity. You mentioned that there are discussions that haven't had activity since 10 May that haven't been archived. I think part of the issue is that the #Deletion of file section was not signed properly. I've added {{unsigned}} to that post, in the hopes that the bot will archive a lot of the old discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@BrettA343: The discussions last updated on 10 May have now been archived. Thanks for bringing the problem to our attention! GoingBatty (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: You're welcome about 'bringing the problem to your attention', but can I also suggest you change the message from "a few days" to "48 hours"? Or even better, archive after a few days (please specify how many days you've chosen)? I find myself having to pace my responses so the 48 hours doesn't 'catch me' again because I'm still waiting for Promessa's reply to my email (it's another time-waster). BrettA343 (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@BrettA343: The top of this page states "Completed questions are archived within 3 days." The bot runs once a day and archives everything with no response for more than 48 hours, so I believe this statement is accurate. Could you please mention exactly where you see the verbiage "a few days"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, BrettA343. I wasn't clear, because your description leaves unstated various points. It is not clear to me whether or not the PDF in question has been published - which, as you point out, is not necessarily clearcut. It is now common for materials to circulate on the internet whose provenance is unclear, and in some cases in varying versions: when have such things been published?
If the report is available only from the subject of the article, it is at best self-published. If the subject and not the originator publishes the report, there is no way for a reader to tell whether the subject might have altered or (for example) cherry picked the document. I know nothing of Promessa, and have no reason to doubt their good faith; but in general this is a concern. But I am happy to wait and see how it looks when you have the document and have decided how to reference it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)



Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, articles of this case are very hard to pass on, so be sure to read up on the help sections "My first article" and "notability" to get you started on rules and regulations. Someone else might link the sources for me because I don't know how to. Good luck! Le Panini (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi talk, Wikipedia is not the place to make yourself famous at all :) Have a look at Wikipedia:Autobiography and please have also a close look of the Welcome Message I left you on your talk page, there you got good starting points to read what you can do and what you should not do. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@CousinsTeam: Please dont write in all capital letters. Itss considered yelling and will definitely not cause others to be encouraged to help you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: I'm starting to feel like that needs to be added to the page's edit notice Hillelfrei talk 16:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe. I see about 1 request per week on all the help boards I monitor regulary. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any benefit to telling people not to use ALL Caps in multiple places. Those are people who don't pay attention. One notice is enough. Oh well. McClenon mobile (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Short answer is you don’t, unless you can show you are notable with significant coverage in multiple reliable news sources, and you write neutrally (No all caps either). In all honesty if you are notable it’s still better off someone else creates the article. Regards SK2242 (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

clarify use?

clarify use [ 18] is incorrect or correct in |pages=[ 18] ?

for example the issue is on Abella. the above code is copied from Wikipedia:Citing sources. i find it sometimes particularly when quoting book. i have read Template:Cite book but i could not find info. according to me :

  • (1) correct : {{cite book |last=Rawls |first=John |title=A Theory of Justice |publisher=Harvard University Press |date=1971 |page=18 |url=}}
  • (2) incorrect : {{cite book |last=Rawls |first=John |title=A Theory of Justice |publisher=Harvard University Press |date=1971 |page=[ 18] |url=}}
  • (3) incorrect : {{cite book |last=Rawls |first=John |title=A Theory of Justice |publisher=Harvard University Press |date=1971 |page=[ 18]}}

if there are multiple citations with different pages, i want to avoid {{rp|9–57}} and use the following code :

  • (4) Rawls, John. [ ''A Theory of Justice'']. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 18.

please clarify Leela52452 (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: I thought it might be useful to show how these render to facilitate discussion:
  • (1) Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. p. 18.
  • (2) Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. p. 18.
  • (3) Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. p. 18.
  • (4) Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 18.
I'll note I've seen a bot make these links to page numbers. I personally don't like the link being to the page only in (3) because it's easy to miss the fact that there's a link at all, but (2) is annoyingly duplicative. I use (1). The un-templated (4) seems to mimic (1), except that it puts the year in a different place and uses different punctuation (as a result).
I'm missing how any of them solve the problem that I think you're asking about, which is the need to cite multiple pages in the same book. AFAIK, the alternative to {{Rp}} (or {{R}}) is using Harvard-style "short footnotes" with {{Sfn}} and a bibliography that contains the full cite to which those notes refer. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
A little spitballing: I generally don't create new articles, so I'm usually stuck with following the existing cite format of the article. {{Sfn}} is more complicated and easily gets broken when people make changes, so I wouldn't add that to an article that doesn't already use it. I generally will use the {{Rp}} approach, though you have to be careful to avoid things like this[1][2]:34[5], which can be hard to parse, usually by doing this[1][5][2]:34 or, if there are multiple {{Rp}} together, try to split them up into different (though relevant) places or, as a last resort, space them like this.[1] [2]:34 [5]:67
I haven't seen it done, but a separator other than (or in addition to) space might be clearer, like this.[1], [2]:34, [5]:67 Or maybe if the template would put the page numbers inside the brackets like this.[1][2:34][5:67] Thoughts welcome. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Linking the page number doesn't appear to be a documented feature of the templates, and given that most attempts to externally link inside other parameters [aside from those explicitly for external links] are now suppressed and throw an error, we can probably expect the same will happen with page numbers in a future code revision. So, just use the |url= parameter and include a specific enough URL to get where you want it to get (or use |chapter-url= – it depends on what you're citing with what template). So, example 1 above is correct for typical cases, while in an edited volume it might be like so: {{cite book |last=Rawls |first=John |chapter=A Theory of Justice, Revisited |chapter-url= |page=18 |editor-last=Public |editor-first1=Jane Q. |title=Justice and Theories About It |publisher=Harvard University Press |date=2021}}. Examples 2 and 3 are a bad idea, and certainly no bot should be auto-doing anything like that. I don't see the point of example 4; either use a full citation in the same templated style, or use short-footnote style (typically Harvard format), or use {{Rp}}. "Sometime soon", changes to the <ref> code will obviate the need for {{Rp}} in that citation style. The new MediaWiki extension with page-specific refs exists, but as far as I know has not yet been slated for introduction to just yet. {{Rp}} is really intended for works that are being cited over and over and over again in the same article; it's not a big deal to just repeat an entire citation apart from page number (e.g. copy-paste the whole citation and change the page) a couple of times in an article. It's also fine, if there couldn't be any confusion, to manually do a short cite on later occurrences, e.g. <ref>Rawls (1971), [ p. 18].</ref>; not sure it matters exactly what is linked there. If using Harvard citation templates, there's probably some documentation specifics about this sort of thing. I just don't see a rationale for manually doing an "almost full-length" later cite with: Rawls, John. [ ''A Theory of Justice'']. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 18..  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting help to see if the 2nd draft of my article meets the WP:NPOV and WP:TONE criteria before I resubmit it

Dear Teahouse hosts,

The first draft of my article Draft: Nipun Malhotra (social entrepreneur) was declined on the ground of WP:NPOV and WP:TONE issues. Based on the feedback received and after reading multiple articles, I have tried and changed the writing style extensively. Please note that I have also looked at other similar pages to understand the accepted format. (I'd be happy to share the details of the pages I have referred to in case that's required.)

I'm writing to request one of you to kindly go through my edited draft to see if this is worth resubmitting. Following is the relevant link: []

Thank you! Nipman (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Nipman. Welcome to the Teahouse. If you writing an article about yourself, stop. In the eyes of Wikipedia, this is called a conflict of interest which means you have a personal connection with the subject. Someone else will end up writing an article for you if you are notable. Please see our policy on autobiographies. Interstellarity (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The actual wording at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged." Which is not the same as prohibited. I did some formatting work on the article. I suggest you consider resubmitting it now that you have also removed POV and tone content, and see what the next reviewer has to say. David notMD (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nipman: I did some more cleanup on style issues and also some copy-editing. I've left some maintenance tags (search for "clarif" and "which?") in areas that I thought were unclear or needed expansion. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Interstellarity: , Just to keep you informed, my article does not violate WP:COI in any manner. My user name might have confused you. However, I've thought of a more apt username for my account. I've read WP:CHUG and will make the changes after this article is over (in order to avoid any confusion). It was a random decision while creating my account. But thank you for the guidance! Nipman (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear @David notMD: and @AlanM1:, Thank you so much for all your help and support. The article looks so much better with your formatting and cleanup. And the maintenance tags are quite self explanatory to understand what's wrong with my draft. I will make all the necessary changes based on your feedback and resubmit my article. Thank you once again. Nipman (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear @David notMD: and @AlanM1:, I have accommodated all the suggested changes in the article to the best of my understanding. This is how my article looks now: [] If any of you could kindly skim through it once, I will feel much more confident in re-submitting this article. Sharing it with you guys because you invested your time and energy in this. Thank you! Nipman (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Needs a ref at the end of the Awards text. David notMD (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: Sure, I'll put one. Thank you!

Merge page for Felischa Marye

Hello, I was submitting what I thought was a new page but to my surprise there was another page that had the same information. I was told to merge the two pages but I am not sure if I did it correctly as the editor has not responded.

This is my page []

This is the page that I merged my information into. I have made the necessary changes but I am just not sure if I did it correctly. Please advise. [] ArborChamp (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Response from TeaHouse Host: Hi ArborChamp and welcome to the TeaHouse. We love to answer questions posed by other editors. You did do the merge correctly, however, before the merge takes place, there is a discussion to be had. That discussion has not yet begun. It can be located on the article page in which you want to merge. However, I recommend you read Wikipedia:Merging to obtain the details of what you need to do. It should also be noted that both of the articles have been declined for nomination into the main space. The list of issues is located at Draft:Felischa_Marye. Once all issues have been addressed, you are more than welcome to resubmit it. I hope this helps and if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask us.
Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 07:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC) TeaHouse Host

I work for an research institute, tried to update the wikipedia page and some editor undid my changes falsely, help?

Blocked: Promotional edit reverted, OP blocked until username changes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I was tasked by my institute director to update our wikipedia page: [] I made the updates, just about what research we do at the institute and new facilities and published them and within seconds received a notification from an editor (not one associated with the institute) saying my changes were promotional when they are not, I'm stating facts about our institute? I am new to this and very confused on how to publish my changes again or even how to speak with this editor: [] about why she thinks something is promotional or against wikipedia policies?

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you! WIN Waterloo (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@WIN Waterloo: Welcome to the Teahouse. I dream of horses was following policy. One thing editors should understand is that articles that relate to them do not belong to them. Furthermore, you are highly discouraged from editing pages that are related to you as you would have a conflict of interest, unless you are the subject and are removing vandalism. Facts need to be sourced in reliable, independent sources; you can go to the article's talk page and submit edit requests to suggest content changes paired with reliable sources. As an aside, if you wish to keep editing here on Wikipedia please change your username, as there is a username policy that forbids editors from using their organisation's name as you have done.Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Addendum: I am more inclined to agree with I dream of horses' reversion after taking a glance at what they reverted. The language used was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Under unintended consequences, the question submitter is now blocked until making a name change. Once that step is completed, must comply with WP:PAID be declaring paid status on User page. And as Tenryuu pointed out, the proper path for a paid editor to pursue changes is to propose content on the article's Talk page (change ____ to ____) so that a non-involved editor can decide to accept or decline the proposed changes. Frustrating as ___? Yes, but required. David notMD (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hebrew script in first sentence

David Brodman - I’m experienced with Wikipedia, but can someone help writing the date of birth after the name in Hebrew. It doing strange things... SportsOlympic (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed @SportsOlympic: --Hillelfrei talk 21:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Hillelfrei:, thanks but now the day of birth is removed. If I place it back, the same error is there again :( SportsOlympic (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@SportsOlympic: I see you just placed it in and I don't see a problem now - is it still displaying wierdly for you? Hillelfrei talk 21:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Hillelfrei:, yes, I’m seeing now: “David Brodman (Hebrew:דוד ברודמן) (22 February 1936 - 19 May 2020)” SportsOlympic (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@SportsOlympic: What do you want it to say? Hillelfrei talk 22:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@SportsOlympic: Looks OK to me, too, except that the correct separator for a date range like that is a spaced endash, which is most easily done with the code 22 February 1936{{Snd}} 19 May 2020, which produces "22 February 1936 – 19 May 2020". Elsewhere, we might combine the alternative name and dates, separated by a semicolon, into the same set of parentheses, but there can be issues with editing tools and left-to-right script in the vicinity of right-to-left script, so if it works this way, I think it's OK (except for the endash issue, that is Face-smile.svg). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
On my iPhone, I’m still seeing “David Brodman (Hebrew:22) (HEBREW NAME February 1936 – 19 May 2020)“ instead of David Brodman (Hebrew:HEBREW NAME) (22 February 1936 – 19 May 2020)“. Maybe there is a difference with different browsers? SportsOlympic (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@SportsOlympic: Sorry – I was lazy and didn't look at the code. Is it better now? I wrapped the Hebrew name in {{Lang-he}} which should tell the browser how to render it correctly. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@AlanM1:, ahh wow!! Yes, perfect! Thanks! Will use it in other articles :) SportsOlympic (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Templates Infobox French constituency, French political party colours


Deferred to Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Template:Infobox_French_constituency

Hi - I'm trying to update French constituency pages to reflect change in party for deputies who left La République En Marche! to form Ecology Democracy Solidarity, but I am having trouble getting the party colour to show. See Template:Infobox French constituency. A test case constituency page is Alpes-de-Haute-Provence's 1st constituency. The colour for the new party is set up in Template:Ecology Democracy Solidarity/meta/color Newystats (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Newystats: and welcome to the TeaHouse. I apologize that no one has responded to you as we are all volunteers and we get a lot of questions, so this may have been overlooked. On behalf of all the hosts, I apologize for the delay. To answer your question, your template should look like this:

{{Infobox French constituency | name = | image = | map = | member-type = | member = | member-party = | party-colour = REM | department = | cantons = | voters = }}

Adding the REM to the party-colour will generate a green background with black lettering. Ensure there is a space after the = sign. You can also view a sample at Template:Infobox_French_constituency/testcases. If this does not help, please list the code you are using in its entirety by using <nowiki> above everything at the beginning and </nowiki> as the very last line in the code. Thanks and again welcome. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 06:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC) TeaHouse Host

Thanks @Galendalia: - no worries about the time for reply, I appreciate your help. I've set up a reproducible example in User:Newystats/French Constituency

For the existing party, La République En Marche!, the colours work. There is a colour defined in Template:La République En Marche!/meta/color which generates colours in code like:

{| class="wikitable" |- !colspan="2"|Election!!Member!!Party |- | style="background-color: {{En Marche!/meta/color}}" | | 2017 | Member |- | style="background-color: {{Ecology Democracy Solidarity/meta/color}}" | | 2020 | blah |}

I created the template for Template:Ecology Democracy Solidarity/meta/color, and that makes the second line of the table above work.

The issue is I don't know where the template is to set up the colour for the new party in a way that works in the Template:Infobox French constituency

REM as you describe works for La République En Marche!, but I can't work out where to set up the short form code for Ecology Democracy Solidarity, so that the template colour works.

Two infoboxes; REM does REM colour {{Infobox French constituency | name = 1st constituency of [[Alpes-de-Haute-Provence]] | image = | map = | member-type = Deputy | member = [[Delphine Bagarry]] | member-party = LREM | party-colour = REM }} This does not do EDS colour {{Infobox French constituency | name = 1st constituency of [[Alpes-de-Haute-Provence]] | image = | map = | member-type = Deputy | member = [[Delphine Bagarry]] | member-party = [[Ecology Democracy Solidarity|EDS]] | party-colour = EDS }} The EDS colour works in tables: {| class="wikitable" |- !colspan="2"|Election!!Member!!Party |- | style="background-color: {{En Marche!/meta/color}}" | | 2017 | Member |- | style="background-color: {{Ecology Democracy Solidarity/meta/color}}" | | 2020 | blah |}

Newystats (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Update from TeaHouse host: I have opened a request at the template page to have assistance on this as it needs to be documented and corrected to allow it. I have pointed them to this discussion and you can work with them at Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Template:Infobox_French_constituency for any issues regarding this specific template. They are usually pretty fast in resolving these types of issues. Galendalia (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC) TeaHouse Host
  • Another Update: Newystats, this has been fixed as the EDS was not being passed to the template. The template team was able to fix it and I asked them to add documentation to the template. I hope this helps you out. As always, we appreciate you using the TeaHouse and look forward to answering any other questions you may have. Galendalia (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC) TeaHouse Host

Submitting a new article for review

Resolved: Draft was accepted as an article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have written an article on Draft:HMS Leander (1848) to fill the gap in the list of HMS Leanders.

I would like to have it reviewed for publication.

Also I have uploaded a photograph of it to Wikimedia Commons but cannot get the link to work in my article.

The 'Leander' at the entrance of Balaklava harbour, 1855 GrognardJeff (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@GrognardJeff: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see that Tenryuu kindly submitted the draft for you. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@GrognardJeff: I also see the file you uploaded at Commons:File:The 'Leander' at the entrance of Balaklava harbour, 1855.jpg, but I don't know where you want it in your draft. GoingBatty (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I've tried inserting it in the Crimean War section, but must be missing something about Image insertion syntax and names with ' in them. Newystats (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: @GrognardJeff: Your draft was accepted and is now in mainspace. Congratulations! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Unable to find my name while searching on wikipedia

Hi All,

I have submitted my docs but unable to find my page on Wikipedia. Could you please let me know why I am not visible on Wikipedia? My User ID: KCSnooker Kcsnooker (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kcsnooker: Your userpage is in your signature. In case you don't know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that hosts articles; it is not a place to put resumes up of yourself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kcsnooker: Are you referring to User:Kcsnooker/sandbox? Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged. GoingBatty (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The content you had placed at User:Kcsnooker has been subjected to Speedy deletion. The function of a User page is for a relatively brief description of your intentions as a Wikipedia editor. Some background is allowed, but not a 'profile.' Your Sandbox User:Kcsnooker/sandbox contains a draft of an article about yourself, and has been nominated for Speedy deletion. I you intend to pursue creating an article about yourself, you should contest this as quickly as possible, before an Administrator deletes it. The draft is seriously flawed. It has a personal tone (he did this, he thought that) rather than encyclopaedic, paragraphs are without references, and there is a lot of repetition of content in tables and text. Nothing should be bould except the first use of the subject's name. David notMD (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
AND... deleted as I wrote. You can contact the deleting administrator to ask if you can recover your draft content. David notMD (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Article declined because of missing neutral or relevant sources

Dear All, I recently did write an article about of group of artists I think it would be interesting for the community. I wrote a short brief and did put in 4 links to reliable sources in the Design and Art world (AIGA, Design Observer, Graphic Hug, CalArts Institute). Then it was declined because sources were missing?

What kind of sources should it be then?

Best, Andreas AndreasFrutiger (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Vier5. REALLY short, and sadly, while interviews as sources can be used to provide basic information, do not contribute to notability. In other refs, mention of Vier5 is only a sentence or two. David notMD (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Problem with citation template

In William G. Brown#Writings, the last item, which I just added, says it's a press release and I have no idea why or how to fix it. Thanks. deisenbe (talkdeisenbe (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Can you supply a diff, please? I think you've probably linked to the wrong article. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Deisenbe: No need. I think I found your edit (you did name the wrong article! - see diff) Now, I'm no expert at all when it comes to templates, but I note on the template's talk page at Template talk:Cite letter#use template wrapper that last year a modification was made which deployed part of {{Cite press release}}. (Exactly what it was doing, is beyond me). However, when I went to the template documentation for Cite letter and compared the accepted fields with those you used, I noticed you had included "type = ", which is not in the documentation for {{Cite letter}}, YET it is shown in that template's syntax in vertical format, but not in horizontal view. (I think that was an error, and that its unwanted presence is causing the problem by invoking the default (Press Release) statement), so I am going to ping @Jonesey95 and Trappist the monk: with the suggestion that they check and resolve this. Meanwhile, just remove "type= "from your use of cite letter, and you should be sorted. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 

Sorry! It's William G. Allen#Writings, in case anyone else looks for it. i didn't insert "type=", it came when I copied and pasted the template. deisenbe (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Query about neutral tone in an article

Hello - I am writing to ask if someone could help me with my edit of this article: []

It has been declined as apparently the tone is not neutral enough for an encyclopedia article. I think I have identified the key points which need amending or deleting but I would really like to check this with someone if advice is available, to give myself the best chance of getting it right with the next submission. If anyone is available to advise me I would be very grateful. I have noted the points I think may be problematic below (highlighting in bold the key words in longer sentences) and it would be great if anyone could confirm if these sound like they are breaching the formal / neutral tone guidelines.

Many thanks! I am new to Wikipedia so any guidance appreciated.

Esua has had a lifetime career in the aid and development movement, human rights and women’s equality.

She was founder staff member of the National Alliance of Women’s organisations 1990-95, which brought more than 300 members and women’s organisations together across the UK, and helped to spearhead the formation of the European Women’s Lobby.

In 1995 Esua founded Anona Development Consultancy and has worked with over 100 different not-for-profit organisations on five continents, developing global strategies for WaterAid, Oxfam and ActionAid among many others. She is also an experienced public speaker on issues relating to equality and human rights, including a recent Keynote speech at the Governance Institute Charity Governance Conference 2019[2].

Esua has founded, Chaired and served on the Board of a number of prominent feminist groups and women’s organisations. she introduced new feminist, participatory approaches to governance.[to the Fawcett society]

Esua has set up a fund to raise money for community development projects, such as schools and public bathrooms for the Village Katecmorrison (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Katecmorrison, haven't studied the whole draft but what gave me direct attention is that the section "feminist activist" is almost unsourced, you should definitely try to add some reliable sources to this section before resubmitting. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I shall add in some more sources to that section. All the best, Kate.Katecmorrison (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Katecmorrison: In addition, the "Early life" and "University of Leicester" sections are completely unsourced, and much of the "Career" section is unsourced. To negate your conflict of interest, I suggest you start over by simply summarizing what the independent reliable sources say, and provide the appropriate inline citations. GoingBatty (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
A common error is to first write what you know to be true, and then trying to patch in references after. Also, you are over-linking, as in Wikilinking common words ("aid") and repeating to link each time you name an organization. Too much blue! David notMD (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

member of parliament

I want to know if member of a parliament is notable enough to be a wikipedia article. I have seen all members of US congress are Wikipedia pages. I want to ask if all 746 members of German parliament Bundestag can be featured in 746 Wikipedia pages. Another thing is that someone who is notable in Spanish or German Wikipedia can be how much notable in the English one. I want to collect info about a French politician, what if I don't know French and google translation is a mess.... in this case, should English rather than French Wikipedia be my source? Ppt2003 (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ppt2003: Politicians who have been members of national legislative bodies are generally considered notable, per WP:POLITICIAN. Notability criteria vary between Wikipedias, so be sure the person meets the English Wikipedia criteria before spending time working on a draft. You should use independent reliable sources, and not use Wikipedia as a source, per WP:CIRCULAR. GoingBatty (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ppt2003: As GoingBatty notes, members of national legislatures are considered to be notable- but they still must be discussed in independent reliable sources. Those sources do not need to be in English, German is fine. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

adding photo

Have a cup of tea and enjoy seeing Commons images on Wikipedia

Please clearly explain how can I add photos in Wikipedia articles. I have seen that directly copy-pasting photos are not working. How in the world are then everyone is adding photos in Wikipedia. How does the title of the picture gets changed, and it becomes jpg. format? Ppt2003 (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ppt2003. I am assuming you have already found an image image you want to use on Wikimedia Commons? If not, go to this main page and type a keyword in the search box (it's at the top right in desktop view). If you find an image you like, but it's not quite the right one, you could click one or more of the "Categories" listed at the very bottom of the page. This helps keep related images together and helps you find others.
It could be like this one of a cup of tea that you want to use. Using an exisiting one is easier that a brand new image of your own that you would first have to upload from scratch. So, click on the link in the previous sentence, or click the photograph you see here - you're taken to the same place - and 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 the words "Use this file". Click that link 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.) Copy the link to your clipboard and then go to the Wikipedia page you want to add it to (let's assume we want to add it to the page we're on now). 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 you copied at the very top of that section. By default, this adds the thumbnail picture and its caption on the right hand side of the page, as you see here. 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 with further guidance and tweaks, or detailed layout possibilities at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.
Of course, if you are using the alternative Visual Editor (which is a bit more WYSIWYG), the process is slightly different. 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 Wikimedia 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.
If you need advice on actually uploading your own image first, that requires a slightly different answer and a mention of copyright issues. Let us know if you need further help on that. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Changing of template name, keeping the contents intact

How to change the template, i.e., move a page to another without changing its original contents? For example, i want to make the name of the page 'Sealdah-Sitamarhi Express' instead of Sealdah-Muzaffarpur Express. How can i do it? Roy 953 (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Roy 953, to move a page, you click on the "More" tab and the top and select "Move". But why do you want to move that article? The first source cited has the "Muzaffarpur" name in its URL, though it does not actually use either name; the second gives a "Page not found" message, and the third uses the "Muzaffarpur" name. So the consensus is against the change that you want. Maproom (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

That is because the article is about Sealdah-Sitamarhi Express, an express train system in Indian Railways. But, the template name has 'Sealdah-Muzaffarpur Express'. This name was relevant when i had first created the page. But now, as the above mentioned train's destination has changed, i wanted to change the template name too Roy 953 (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Roy 953 (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Maproom courtesy ping Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

First edits

Hi everyone, I'm new to the site and would like ask if you could suggest a couple easy options for my first few edits? Thanks! Salaiken (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Salaiken. Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. You ask a very sensible question about getting started, which all too few people ever do! Like driving a car, using Wikipedia does take time to get to grips with. Go too fast at first and you tend to crash. We have lots of ways to make improvements, and some of these can be found at the rather daunting-looking Wikipedia:Community portal. But there's a suggested work area there for fixing articles that simply need improvements to spelling or grammar. This could be a great place to start.
But not everyone is good at spelling or grammar, so you could simply look at articles on subjects you are interested in. The first one you look at might seem perfect, but at the bottom of the page in desktop view you'll see some 'Categories'. Click one of those that sounds interesting, and you'll see related articles that also fall into that category. You could browse those too until you find something that needs fixing. But please don't just add 'facts' from your own personal knowledge - everything here needs to be supported with a link to a reliably published source. So resist the temptation to add stuff about your home town that you're unable to prove by reference to a published book or website. Adding citations can be tricky for a complete newcomeer, so I've written what I hope is a simply guide (see WP:EASYREFBEGIN).
A could place to 'get a feel' of how we work is to do The Wikipedia Adventure, and you can collect 15 different badges as you learn the basics of editing. We are here whenever you get stuck or need help with editing. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy of Wikipedia

"Take that - Fake news!"

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask this, but if there's another place, please let me know.

Is there a name for people for the philosophy that Wikipedia's Core content policies adhere to. For example Neutrality/Verifiability/Reliable Sources. Is there a name for this philosophy? “_______ism.” There are certain rules in wikipedia, but it appears wikipedia takes it’s rules from the norms of philosophy. You have to cite your sources, you have to use reliable sources, you have to follow the norms of philosophy (not using logical fallacies,) I believe that the rules and norms of Wikipedia and Academia are one of the best ways to ascertain truth, but is there a name for this philosophy? Rationalism? there's Empiricism? But it seems the word I'm looking for is broader than that.

Thanks – Chrisvacc - 15:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chrisvacc: I wish I was clever enough to give you a serious answer. I am not. So, instead, I'll just have to proffer this neologism: Neuveriliableindepedanticism
I'm sorry that won't help you one jot, but whatever the word really is that you're looking for, most of us here will be proud to admit that they do subscribe to it. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Ha! I was looking through the philosophy pages – there's Rationalism, Empiricism which seem to come close, but don't quite hit the mark. I wish there were a word that encompasese Neutrality, Verifiability and Reliability. Maybe if there's not one, we should make one? The story of The Hedgehog and the Fox seems to encompass what we do here ("a fox knows many things, but a hedgehog one important thing".) Wikipedia generally subscribes to the Fox philosophy. There has to be a word for this. – Chrisvacc - 15:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Nah - we just get stuck in and don't worry about words... ... though maybe Nerdifactualism is another suitable term we could adopt. I found these pictures that might possibly help someone's thought processes. (My sincere apologies for turning a serious question into my "moment of madness") Nick Moyes (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
We call ourselves Wikipedians, so it logically follows that Wikipedianism is a perfectly cromulent name for the code by which we build the 'pedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Chrisvacc, we just call it The Golden Rule. Liz Read! Talk! 16:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Dodger67: Wikipedianism doesn't sound bad... maybe it should be in the dictionary! REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I was hoping we could come up with a word that wasn't exclusve to Wikipedia. Something like Neutralism. Or Verifiabilitism. I dunno lol – Chrisvacc - 17:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Cromulent - William F. Buckley would be proud. On a related note, how about Agfism for tirelessly assuming good faith? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I say NVRism (pronounced never-ism) - Sorry if too short, but sometimes short is easier than long. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 06:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You would think there'd be a word for this. It's not like this methodology / philosophy is exclusive to Wikipedia. It's the core ethos of Journalism, scientific papers, Academia, and Wikipedia – Chrisvacc - 14:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Here are some latin roots that may work: neutrum (neutral), verum (truth), veritas (truth), tantum (just), exiges (exact) – Chrisvacc - —Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Encyclopaediaism ? REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Side note, whatever this philosophy is, it should be considered sacred. This ethos / set of guidelines is the sole thing that made an encyclopedia that anyone could edit (a project that sounds like it’s destined to end in a COMPLETE disaster) and turned it into one of the most accurate sources of information known to humanity. – Chrisvacc - 01:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The latin root of evidence is quod. The latin root of verify is quin. – Chrisvacc - 02:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

How to update Range Map?

Dear all,

I am currently curating the wikipedia page of the southern right whale dolphin. What I noticed is that the Range Map is outdated and should be updated (see the distributional map on the IUCN red list page of the southern right whale dolphin). []

Could someone explain which is the best way to update this map? I work from a computer, editing source code.

Thank you in advance.

Best wishes, Mweyn (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, Mweyn. We're seeing some really great and interesting questions here at the Teahouse today. Thank you for yours. Looking at the two maps, I do note the 2018 IUCN map shows a more northerly distribution of the species between South America and Australasia than is shown on the 2005 Wikipedia graphic, though the change of range is not huge. One easy way (without changing the graphic at all) is simply to expand the text and/or image caption to highlight the small discrepancy.
The second way is to get the graphic updated. There seems to be two versions in use, made/uploaded either by User:Pcb21 or User:Achim Raschka. Both editors seem to still be active today, so might be willing to consider updating the graphic, and replacing it. I'm not convinced either may feel the discrepancy is so huge as to warrant it, but they might.
A third way to get maps created or modified is to put in a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, but I've no idea how they approach such matters. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

wikimedia commons

When I want to add a wikimedia photo, sometimes - the reuse the photo option magically appears, and reuse the photo option magically disappears. There are five links -file, file history, usage on wikimedia commons, usage on other wikis and metadata. There is no way to add the image on Wikipedia page via the five options. How do I prevent the magical disappearance of reuse the file option?? Ppt2003 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You may have more success asking the question at Commons, rather than here at enwiki. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
When I look at a photo in Commons, across the top of the photo is a toolbar saying: "Download/ Use this file/ Use this file/ Email a link/ Information". The second "Use this file" link has a Wikipedia logo alongside it, and the tooltip when I hover over the link says: "Use this file on a wiki". I don't know what you mean by the "reuse the photo option", but (as I said above) you may get more help from the experts at Commons. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Chlamydia felis Draft

Hi, I am a new user. I made a draft for a current stub page on Wikipedia for a class and I am unsure how I should publish it. I apparently tried to publish it in an incorrect way. How should I make these edits public? Should I just go to the original stub page and edit it directly there? Fairy faecalis (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Draft:Chlamydia felis was declined because the article Chlamydia felis already exists, and the advice you were given was to improve it there instead. If you don't feel confident in editing the article directly you can make suggestions at Talk:Chlamydia felis. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hi. Today I edited an article called “Vile vortices” that seems to have been deleted a couple hours ago. What happened?

Can someone put the article back? Dharmadha2 (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If you look at your list of contributions you will see that the article you were editing was Vile vortex, not Vile vortices. The article has not been deleted; its history shows that it has been redirected, and a comment at Talk:Vile vortex gives the logic for the redirection. If you disagree you can discuss it at the article talk page or on the talk page of the editor who did the redirection. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I merged some of the redirected article content, and added the term to the lead, per WP:ASTONISH. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

How to add a YouTube link?

The video I need to give a link to is named "David Lynch talks Mulholland Drive"--DonGuess (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC) DonGuess (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello again DonGuess. That depends on exactly how you want to use the link.
Do you want to place it in an "External links" section? YouTube links are sometimes, but far from always, appropriate for such a section. One must carefully check for copyright issues, as Wikipedia articles should not link to copyright infringements. In such a case one may simply add to the external, links section a link to the YouTube url for the video, just like any other external link.
Do you want to use the link as a reference source? That is possible only if the person or organization that posted the page is a reliable publisher, so that the YouTube video is a reliable source. Most Yo9uTube videos are not considered reliable, but some are, for example broadcast segments posted on the official channel of a news publisher such as a TV network is as reliable as anything from that publisher. In that case you may use {{Cite AV media}} muich like any other citation template.
Do you want to place it in the body of an article? That is not normally appropriate. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Desiegel, I would like to add it to external links of Mulholland Drive, the video is an interview, but it’s not clear when and by who was it taken. On the other hand Wikipedia blocks my edit with an external link to YouTube.DonGuess (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
DonGuess If you don't know when or by whom the video was taken, you don't know who holds the copyright, and so you don't know if it was uploaded to YouTube by or with the permission of the copyright holder. Therefore you should not link to it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
But what if I want someone on Wikipedia to help me find the source of the interview?DonGuess (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a professional Wikipedian nor am I a Teahouse host but I think I have some meaningful advice. If your hoping for other Wikipedians to find the source of the info, ask this same question on the Wikipedia talk page of the Wikipedia page you want to attach the link to. Again, I am not at all a professional Wikipedian, moderator, or any thing of that sort but I do think this should solve your problem. With the best of luck, Dantheanimator (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Ask at the Reference Desk, DonGuess - either Entertainment or Miscellaneous. --ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Black's Reader Book Company

I'm wondering what it is. 2600:1700:DA00:3AC0:59B0:98BE:6301:BED (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. The Teahouse is a place where newcomers can ask questions about editing and using Wikipedia. It does not seem like Wikipedia has an article on Black's Reader Book Company. If you can narrow your query, the folks over at the Reference desk may be able to help you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
It is likely Black's Readers Service Company by publisher Walter J. Black (republished classic books). (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
After a quick Google search, I can't find any coverage of Black's Readers Service Company or Walter J. Black that could support an article about them, but their books are very prolific in the resale market. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

how to insert an image?

Hi there,

I have edited this page in the past but now can't remember how to change the image. Please let me know.

Thank you.

Farrah (Joyab) Joyab (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Joyab: This should help you Wikipedia:Images#Tutorials and help. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Farrah. I see that you had the tenacity to develop Bahman Tavoosi, and get it accepted on the fourth attempt, back in 2014: well done. But noticing that that is the only article you have ever edited, I can't help wondering if you have some connection with Tavoosi. If you have (and especially if you are in any way paid to edit this article, or it is part of your employment), please read our policy on editing with a conflict of interest. If you are not connected with him, then I suggest you create your User page, and explain that on it - so that other people with suspicious minds like mine won't come bothering you again. --ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I just did something dumb and I need someone with more privilege to fix it :(

I was just on the Women in Red page and I found that Angela Beesley Starling was a red link. So trying to be helpful, I googled her name and found enough to create at least a stub. So I thought I would try to make the page.

So I clicked on the WIR link and it started creating this article: [[1]] I didn't notice the Q number at first so I assumed that the article really didn't exist and added my first couple of sentences by copying the article in Simple English WP. Then I noticed the Q number so I attempted to move the article to Angela Beesley Starling without the Q number. This is where I realized I was in trouble, because that article already exists, at least as a redirect.

I think the best thing to do is delete the article I just made at [[2]] But I don't think I have the power to delete articles, so it would be great if someone could do that.

I might start a discussion on the redirect page about whether there should be a standalone page about Angela Beesley Starling. Also, I think consideration might be given to changing the bot that makes the page at [] to use the correct link, so that the Q number confusion doesn't happen to someone else.

Anyway, sorry to mess up, I'll try to be more careful in future. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC) MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarylandGeoffrey: No worries. Place this at the top of the article: {{Db-userreq}}. An administrator will see it and delete it. RudolfRed (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Update - It looks as if ABS is the only link on that page that contains the Q number. I'm not sure how that got messed up when the rest of the page is fine but I'm glad it's not a major bug in the bot. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarylandGeoffrey (talkcontribs) 23:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: - Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarylandGeoffrey (talkcontribs) 23:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The Q numbers are deliberate when there is an existing article or redirect which is not connected to the Wikidata item the entry is based on. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 71#Discussion at MediaWiki talk re blacklisting titles containing Wikidata Q numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The article was deleted in 2015 following this discussion, with Angela herself requesting its deletion. Unless there's been a significant amount of new coverage since then, I don't think it should be recreated. the wub "?!" 14:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Michael Nylan

I am surprised we don't have an article for this scholar and historian from UC Berkeley. Would her career make her notable for inclusion? She has published over a dozen books and 30+ refereed articles. See her CV hereTooironic (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! If you believe there is someone or something that should be created, then you can start a draft. Click the blue hyperlink for further details. To answer your question about notability, there is also an article about notability, which you can look at. It will explain everything you need to know. Writing an article is one of the hardest things to do on the site according to top users (though I seemed to have not many troubles so far), so I'd study up before taking a shot. Happy editing! Le Panini (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your prompt and helpful response. Tooironic (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
It seems someone else has already created a draft, which has been flagged as 'covert advertising'. Where do we go from here? Tooironic (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Tooironic: Welcome to the TeaHouse! The reason you are seeing this banner is it appears someone who made a majority of the edits may be being paid to create the page. Wikipedia policy requires a conflict of interest for paid editors disclosure to be placed on the talk page of the article and on the users' page (this is the first page, not the talk page). Here is the link to the policy on paid editing. Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure. This page goes into detail on exactly the requirements and what needs to be done and listed. I hope this helps provide some clarity to you and feel free to come back and ask more questions if needed. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 06:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC) TeaHouse Host

I need help, I am getting confused about what is happening :-(

Can someone please explain to me what is happening and what are the steps I should do in order to not be confused anymore?
I was accused of rambling here:
Because of a comment I made here, in the talk section:
And I was told that I would get a WP:BOOMERANG here:

Can someone just tell me what is going on? I really don't understand and I just want to help participate in the discussion. I felt that I've been disrespected because of the rambling accusation, but the on the last page I linked here someone says that I was in the wrong. Can someone just make things clear for me please... this is getting ridiculous. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I'm an amateur, so somebody with more experience will come in and either further clarify my reasons or give an official claim. From what I can see, it seems that they are turning down your edit due to a lack of proper third party evidence. While you might have some, it isn't proper or it isn't enough for the claim to be in the article.
When people repeatedly add an addition to an article but is turned down 3 times without permission in one day, it is considered vandalizing. I specifically would read the articles talking about said vandalizing to see how you can improve, or you can speak to a professional about it directly. Wikipedia has some very specific (and rediculous) rules when it comes to a newcomer; even I still don't get a lot of stuff, but things will make sense if you study up on what's the norm, and it will be less aggravating. I hope this helps, and if not, seek a professional or leave another response for me or someone to further clarify.Le Panini (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Le Panini, do you mean the WP:3RR? Ed6767 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I mean Edit Warring. I hope my overly extended paragraph helped. Le Panini (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: I understand now what I did wrong in WIV it was a very swift decision considering I did not know about edit warring, In the talk page of WIV I said that if an admin was telling me to remove it I would have done it! I got insta blocked and did not understand why! I am taking about the rambling accusation because of something I left in a talk page. I thought talk pages where to talk. Did I do something wrong in that talk page? It seems to me that the person leaving a comment in my past block report was doing it intentionally to get me blocked again. I asked the administrator that blocked me if I could continue to contribute in the talk pages because I don't want to make mistakes again while I learn about all this! I don't understand what happened and why I would be wrong to write what I wrote in the talk page, that's pretty much it! I also found the rambling accusation very unresectful. Thanks PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It may be a misunderstood case, or maybe everybody is confused, who knows? Maybe bring this up to a Teahouse host, they're the big bois around here. For now, it's very unclear. Just stay put and an admin or host will get right with you. Le Panini (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

How do I bring this up to a teahouse host? Should I just wait? I feel like people think I am doing stuff out of bad faith... Which is not the case at all! I might not have the right kind of language acceptable yet on Wikipedia and I'm working on it, but it shouldn't bring all this bad rep... I really want to help with the discussion... This is just making me uncomfortable about helping. Are talk pages supposed to be "safe spaces" if you don't start insulting everyone? I think I kept a good language, well maybe not when I first started at WIV... But now I understand. I know now that I'm not familiar with every rules in the book, but I still get so much flak without people even looking at what I try to say! PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: I'm asking for help, I try to talk to everyone to get feedback for everything I do! And it's like: oh no, you are having this agenda and want to destroy the entire wikipedia world... I know it's a heated debate (the pandemic) but people don't need to be that mean about it... Every time I did something it was in good faith, or a mistake that I later realized. And now I have a block report and I wasn't contacted by the admin that blocked me, like I asked for in the WIV page. I want to add to the discussion and I stopped making edits after a few mistakes and an accidental/later assumed BRD. What is all this nonsense? I will stop editing directly Covid pages now, I know that I'm too unfamiliar to do it, but I want my opinion to be heard, at least in the talk pages! PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

After a bit more research, it seems it is a temporary ban. Just wait it out, and after you have been freed you can simply just organize your contributions in the COVID-19 talk page. I know it seems unfair, and there probably is a better way to resolve this, it just seems this is the simplest route for now. 04:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Panini (talkcontribs)
@PhysiqueUL09: you may want to think about getting a mentor to help with some of the complexities of this. I am simply suggesting that as one option; it is entirely up to you. you can look at the page WP:Adoption, if you think that doing so might be helpful. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

do rats dance (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a space for assisting new editors in using and editing Wikipedia. You may want to consult the Wikipedia:Reference desk for your query. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't know about rats dancing, but this species of mouse sings: Adiposity signals predict vocal effort in Alston's singing mice. Burkhard TT, et al. Proc Biol Sci. 2018. PMID: 30819963. David notMD (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Lawrence H. Robinson Citation and References

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Lawrence H. Robinson


I hope this message finds you well and safe. Not sure if you are able to see the the draft I submitted but wanted to know why the Citations/ References come up twice and also, are the properly cited? Thank you for your help and I'm looking forward to hearing back from you!

Kind Regards,

Chrissy Williams Chrissy Will (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chrissy Will: Welcome to the Teahouse. It's because you have put down the URL twice; one in ref tags, once outside. To answer your second question, no, they are not cited properly; citations go after the sentences that they source and the list can be generated by inserting {{reflist}} below the References heading. See WP:EASYREFBEGIN for more details. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank You Teahouse!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissy Will (talkcontribs) 06:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chrissy Will: You added {{Db-g7}} (although incorrectly), as if you wanted to delete the draft, but then kept editing it. Would you like this draft deleted? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Betty, No, i'm sorry for the confusion. I do not want the draft deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissy Will (talkcontribs) 06:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sleeper account activated to influence an AfD

Blatantly violating WP:SLEEPER, a sleeper account which has not made a single edit in 11 years suddenly pops up in an obscure AfD, Sonia Jabbar, to take a jibe at my WP:GOODFAITH. The account is being operated as an IP address: and commented this:

"Comment Note to admin! the nominator Yourmasterishere is a newly created account & suspicious focusing on this person and other Nari Shakti Puraskar winners! Clearly WP:IDONTLIKE. He/She is a new user but has full knowledge on Wikipedia (mostly AFD) and like an experience editor who have total edit count: 32, so may be a sock account. Moreover, he joined Wikipedia on 3 May 2020 See log here. So I would like to request Check User (CU). Btw, imo, she meets WP:ANYBIO#1 however just comment not vote!"

It arouses colossal suspicion that the IP account which made just 25 edits when it was active during 2008 - 2009, transcends in 2020 and elucidates about WP essays, User logs, Check User, discussion abbreviations etc. the way only seasoned editors operate. It appears to be a classic case of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY

Moreover, this allegation is absolutely baseless and pointless since I never focused on this award winners. I just nominated for deletion 2 articles, Sonia Jabbar & Smriti Morarka and both of my nominations are on robust merits and not arbitrary, conjectured refs and cites the way, these articles have been articulated. Both the articles have been created by the same user and both were gravely infringing WP guidelines. If anyone would have genuinely gone through my contributions, they would have seen that I take interest in multidisciplinary domains. Yes, AfD is my topic of interest and I study WP essays & guidelines. I have always added value to any discussion, I have participated in. Is that wrong on my part?

Furthermore, this AfD which was not getting a single "keep" support apart from the user who created this, suddenly starts getting loads of "keep" when it was re-listed. There may be a possibility of WP:CANVASSING.

I request your opinion on the same and I request for running a Check User on this IP to unmask this masqueraded user. Yourmasterishere (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it does not arouse colossal suspicion that edits from an IP come in 2008—09, and then, after more than ten years, come again in 2020. IPs are not accounts, so calling them "sleepers" makes no sense. I don't know what you mean by saying the IP "transcends". It's most likely used by someone else by now. Moreover, there were two keeps before the article was re-listed, and two more after it was relisted. (I.e., not one keep before and "loads" of keep after.) That is hardly a suspicious pattern, especially considering that the last two keeps came from an experienced user plus a highly respected admin (User:Abecedare). (For that matter, the first two keeps are also from experienced and respected users, including an admin.) Also, you are a newly created account, Yourmasterishere, which is something generally considered worth pointing out at AfD. Finally, please avoid bludgeoning "Keep" !votes, as you did here ("Kindly reconsider your opinion", etc) and complaining that "the article has been edited post when it was listed for deletion". (So what? "Feel free to improve the article", per the AFD template at the article). This is a very aggressively handled AfD on your part. I can't see anybody else doing anything wrong in it. Bishonen | tålk 08:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC).
@Yourmasterishere: Not only do you seem to be forum-shopping, your post here itself seems hypocritical in the extreme. You are rather foolishly accusing an old, unused IP address of being a 'sleeper account', yet your account contributions (created on 3 May 2020) exhibits perfect evidence of someone with a lot of prior experience and understanding of our policies, and you seem, yourself, to be the perfect candidate for a Check User investigation if you continue to behave in this most unusual manner. Please declare any other account names under which you have previously operated, and ensure you read WP:MULTIPLE lest others accuse YOU of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Marc Chandler ShippmMarino Here To Help .. An Army of 1 and Tells The Truth.

why are we waiting?

Change is over rate and being truthful to yourself and others is all that matters. (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Advertisements on Wikipedia of all places

Hello, my name is Rebestalic

I'm currently getting ads on while browsing Wikipedia pages. Is that the result of a decision on part of higher-ups like Jimbo, or have I fallen victim to malware?

Thank you, Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 09:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not from Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like malware. Try a different browser. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 09:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rebestalic: See more at Wikipedia:FAQ/Readers#Why do I see commercial ads at Wikipedia? PrimeHunter (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
If you do suspect malware, then rather than a different browser, try a different OS. There are plenty that boot off a USB thumb drive and nevertheless give you Firefox and the rest. If you like what you experience -- aside from the sluggishness (unavoidable if running from a thumb drive) -- you can consider installing it properly and using it instead of your current OS. -- Hoary (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Hoary and PrimeHunter, thank you for your replies! I've resolved the issue now, looks like it was an infected Google Chrome extension
Thank you again, Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 10:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


I corrected info on the Wikipedia page titled, “Nelle Benson” and now the code around the title and the image is messed up. But. Didn’t even change any of that. I keep trying to fix it but it’s not working. help!!! (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey there, the page looks fine?
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 10:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Rebestalic again
Somebody's reverted your edits now, so the page is fine
I've had a peek at your edits, and it seems that as you edited the infobox for Nelle Benson, you forgot to keep two braces at the end
You see, the two braces in either direction tell Wikipedia where the infobox starts and ends; since you accidentally removed the '}}' at the end of the infobox code, Wikipedia then assumes everything before it is normal text, and not coding for the infobox
If you're wanting to make more edits (which would be awesome), consider creating an account on Wikipedia!
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 10:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

How can I create a wikipedia entry for the CSC?

Dear Community,

I want to create an Wikipedia article about the CSC Concrete Sustainability Council ([]). The CSC is an independent association which is engaged in sustainable concrete and managing the CSC material stewardship system.

On potential conflict of interest: The CSC has a lot of cement and concrete producing companies among its members, I'm working for a major cement & concrete producer and I'm a board member of the CSC.

Nevertheless, the CSC is getting more and more established in certifying sustainable concrete manufacturing practices with more than 300 certificates in 14 countries now. The CSC System is accepted by major green building labels, such as BREEAM ([]) or DGNB ([]).

Can I write an article? If yes how and how would be the process to get it validated and published?

Thanks a lot Michael Claus Michael Scharpf (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Claus Michael Scharpf, looks like you've been reading up on Wikipedia guidelines, which is great! I personally decided not to do so when I joined Wikipedia...and learned the hard way
When thinking about creating an article, consider the Notability guideline. Although the Concrete Sustainability Council doesn't have to be the next Michael Jackson, it'll need to be known by a considerable amount of people. But don't let Notability put you off--there's another (self-explanatory) principle that exists here, called Articles must be written.
I personally don't specialise in article creation but I believe the Article wizard should guide you through quite nicely.
And if there's anything I didn't answer, please don't hesitate to visit my talk page (which you can find in the green text in my signature)
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 10:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Claus Michael Scharpf (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please review the conflict of interest policy; if you are compensated in any way(not just money) for your presence on the Board of the CSC, you must also make the mandatory paid editing declaration.
The CSC would merit a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources(not just brief mentions or routine announcements) showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia prefers that articles be written by independent editors who take note of a subject in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. Many people associated with a potential article subject have difficulty writing in the manner required by Wikipedia. In essence, you need to forget everything you know about the CSC, forget everything on its website or in other primary sources, and only write based on the content of independent sources. If you truly feel that your organization meets this definition and you can write in the manner that I describe, you should review Your First Article and use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by an independent editor. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
331dot's reply in short: Don't forget to have a neutral point of view! (No offence, 331dot haha) Rebestalic[leave a message....] 10:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
A common problem for people close to their topic is they start by writing what they know, then try to append references. Do searches on CSC to discover whether there are independent write-ups of the organization. CDC's own website can be used for very basic information (when started, where located...) but information about history and functions need to be cited. Write-ups that stem from CDC press releases or interviews of staff do not help confirm notability. Given short history of the organization, this may be too soon. David notMD (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

How to 'talk' about conflicting statements in an article

I was reading []. First sentence 2nd paragraph, "The original building served as New York's first City Hall." Later in the same article under subheading, "First Structure", is this: "The original structure on the site was built as New York's second City Hall in 1699 - 1703..." which seems to contradict the first sentence cited. How do I go about discussing this and getting a bonafide editor to either explain the seeming contradiction or make a change in the entry. Db3593 (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Db3593. Without having read the article, my overall approach would probably be as follows:
  • Follow the first statement to its source (assuming there is one). Is it a good source that supports the statement?
  • Follow the second, contradictory statement to its source (assuming there is one). Is it a good source that supports the statement?
  • If 'yes' to only one; remove the other statement (leaving a clear edit summary)
  • If 'yes' to both questions, you have conflicting information from two good, reliable sources. You now need to present both views neutrally, indicating that historians disagree, and maybe look for further sources that support one story or another.
  • If you're not confident about resolving conflicting historical statements in a neutral manner, go to article's talk page and present your concerns.
This would be my approach in theory; please let us know how it works out for you in practice. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Db3593: I fully support what Nick Moyes said above, but I'd like to add one more, optional step:
  • see the article's talk page for notes about Wikiprojects, in scope of which the article belongs, and make a note about your concerns at (some of) their talk pages
because you may hope participants of related Wikiprojects know more good and reliable sources for their area of interest (or at least know better where to search them). --CiaPan (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
A good point - I'd not thought of that. Some pages get very few views, so WikiProjects can be a good place to go if you are unsure how to proceed yourself. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the factual matter, this website states that the first city hall was established by the Dutch in 1653 in a stone tavern located at 73 Pearl Street and verifies that the building later known as Federal Hall was actually the second city hall. Of course, the "city" was called New Amsterdam then, and only had around 8,000 residents. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
(ec) @Db3593: I'd say that, if you find two opposing sources to be generally reliable, it would be worth searching for additional sources to see if they all favor one side or the other. Sometimes, an otherwise reliable source can be wrong on a particular point, sometimes accidentally. If the consensus of several other sources is against such a source, that source may possibly be removed and the opposing viewpoint not worthy of mention. I would imagine that there will always be some differences in historical accounts. In this particular case, it could be about the exact meaning of "New York's first City Hall" (i.e., corporation status, temporary space vs. officially named, etc.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Aleksey Vagov

I wrote an article named "Aleksey Vagov" which has been deleted by a user named Fastily, although the article was re-submitted and currently awaiting a re-review. Has fastily done the right thing?? Ppt2003 (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Ppt2003, Fastily just moved it to draft space and your draft can be found and improved at Draft:Aleksey Vagov. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 13:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't Fastily that moved the draft. All he did was delete the cross-namespace redirect from mainspace, per R2. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

(merged with above question)

Do wikipedia drafts remain un-reviewed forever? I have a draft named Draft:Aleksey Vagov and after reading some intimidating tea-house conversations, I have begun to fear whether it will take months to get my draft reviewed. Does it really? And if it does, should I nominate my article for speedy deletion and re-write it? Is it considered vandalism? Ppt2003 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

How much of a hurry are you in???? Your 'article' was saved by being converted to a draft on 23 May. Submitted on 23 May. Declined on 23 May. Slightly revised on 23 May. Resubmitted on 23 May. Articles for Creation has close to 2,000 drafts waiting for review. Often days to weeks, but sometimes months. If you believe the draft can be improved, do so while waiting for the next review. If it gets declined a second time, you will still be able to work on it and resubmit. It was already considered good enough that it was not tagged for Speedy deletion. Definitely not vandalism - it is a good faith effort to create an article (which needs more refs!). David notMD (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

How to edit a "semi protected" article

Hello Teahouse! I want to edit the page Eid al-Fitr.But it said that it is semi protected and only auto confirmed users can edit it. So now how can I edit this page? Nasif05 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed means a user has made at least ten edits and has been here for at least four days, Nasif05. You're autoconfirmed. You can just edit the page, no problem. Bishonen | tålk 14:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC).
@Nasif05: To build off of Bishonen's answer, everyone, regardless of their user groups, gets the same warning. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Disney+ relase date

Hello, I want add the third relase date (May 29, 2020) of short The Longest Daycare into this list. (Source.) Is it possible? Patriccck (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Patriccck: I see the Disney+ release date was added in the The Longest Daycare article. If you have a question about adding it to the List of The Simpsons episodes article, the best place to ask would be that article's talk page: Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes. It's good that you have a source to provide. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: Yes, I have a question about adding it to the List of The Simpsons episodes. I wonder if (and how) it is technically possible to add a third relase date. I cannot add a third date. Patriccck (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Patriccck: I understand the question. I suggest you ask it at Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes, to discuss with knowledgeable editors not only how to technically add it, but if there is consensus to add it. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Patriccck (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Publishing Works

Hi Teahouse Crew, Thank you for the invite & for being here for us lowly newbies. Why are external links discouraged for articles on wikipedia? Thank you Roccie (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Roccie Roccie (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Roccie Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia policy on external links can be found at WP:EXTLINK if that helps you. Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate collection of links or linkfarm. Any search engine can fulfill that function. Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone to help edit for me please

Hello, Is there anyone who is an experienced editor who can possibly help to edit an existing article that I am connected with that is factually inaccurate. I really would appreciate the help of someone who understands the workings of Wikipedia. Thank you very much.

NULIUS IN VERBA 13 NULIUS IN VERBA 13 (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi NULIUS IN VERBA 13, welcome to the Teahouse - it would be helpful to know which article you mean. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, NULIUS IN VERBA. If you know what changes you would like to see in the article, one approach is to post a series of Edit requests on the article's talk page. If you say very precisely what change you suggest, and preferably back it up by a published source, then an uninvolved editor will look at your suggestion, and decide what to do according to Wikipedia's principles. --ColinFine (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

What to do after tutorial?

Hey guys, I've just finished the Wikipedia Adventure and I don't know where to start. Do you guys have any suggestions about where I can start making my first real edits? Wikipedia seems really complex and large, and I'm afraid I'll ruin something if I just jump in and start editing randomly. PeanutHat (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, PeanutHat: welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. Don't worry, you can't ruin anything unless you really work at it: every edit that is made can be easily undone if it causes problems. You might find some useful suggestions at the Community portal. Otherwise, just look for articles that interest you, or perhaps Wikiprojects that interest you. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


Header added by ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello I should like to report vandalism on Voulez-Vous (song) - the user Songwaters has removed the Cover Versions Section. I have read the information required for Cover Versions of note - Big Bang's version of Voulez Vous reached no. 1 in the Dance Charts, and Erasure's version of Voulez Vous reached no 1 in the BBC charts. So I'm not sure how either of these cover versions are important enough to be mention, considering Abba did not get the track to no 1 in the UK.???????? It seems Songwaters is not informed enough on musical matters to willy-nilly delete historical reference from Wikipedia pages, at a whim. Please report this action as vandalism.

thank you. Ukance (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ukance, and welcome to the Teahouse. please be cautious about referring to vandalism: Vandalism is editing intended to damage Wikipedia. It looks to me very much as if Songwaters's edits to Voulez-Vous (song) (see how I have wikilinked that, so it's easy for a reader to go and look at the article?) , were in good faith, not vandalism. I get that you disagree - you undid their edit, but then the next step is to open a discussion on the article's talk page, to try and reach consensus. (Songwaters should not have reverted your edit: the sequence is Bold, Revert, Discuss: Songwaters boldly removed something, you reverted, and Songwates should have opened a discussion before reapplying their edit. Please discuss on the article's talk page whether or not that material is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Teahouse. I totally agree with you, and felt the same, that Songwaters had no right to revert my action without discussing the matter. By his reasoning - deleting cover versions on the page of a song page on Wikipedia - would mean practically every original song that has a page on Wikipedia that has a cover versions section should have it deleted. Some songs, say written by Cole Porter or George Gershwin, are only ever recorded as cover versions, and even bands, The Beatles say, have countless cover versions, many of which reach the charts. I'm not sure under Songwaters reasoning what makes a cover version of merit?

Hi, Ukance. Please visit the talk page for that article to see my actual reasoning so we can discuss it. Songwaters (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

in relation to this COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland note

COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland#cite_note-recovery-2

i see there is a listing for active cases this is calculated in the traditional way by taking total number cases and taking away total number of recoveries and also taking way total deaths, however on the 24th of april Ireland starting publishing probable deaths in its official numbers the total number of probable deaths now stands at 242 and this number is also included in the total deaths figure. it is incorrect to take this part of the figure away from the total confirmed cases to find the number of active cases as they would not been included in the original confirmed cases — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:1702:BE00:1860:40B2:A351:DC47 (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 2001:BB6:1702:BE00:1860:40B2:A351:DC47 (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

What is your question about that article or the note you are linking to?— Preceding unsigned comment added by RudolfRed (talkcontribs) 18:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Please don't change your question after somebody has already replied to it - it makes their reply look out of place. What would have been better was to reply to the reply - as I have here - explaining.
To your question: the place to bring this up is at the article's talk page, in this case Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland. --ColinFine (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Why Draft "Bella Cosmetics" is rejected

May I know the reason why the draft is rejected. I have cited all statements in the articles by reliable sources. Ko San Lwin (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Ko San Lwin (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ko San Lwin: Welcome to the Teahouse! I won't speak for Theroadislong, but phrases such as "the beauty products become essential for every ladies" and the product list makes it look more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. GoingBatty (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! How can I edit the product list line by line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ko San Lwin (talkcontribs) 19:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
You have asked the same question elsewhere. The content included promotional puffery such as "Bella product becomes popular among local customers within the very short term, 6 months because the products are high quality and the prices are very reasonable. Some of Bella product starts from 1.3 USD (2000MMK) and the extent to more than 66USD (100,000MMK). Even the housewife working housework is using the Bella products because the beauty products become essential for every ladies, nowadays" which is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ko San Lwin: ... and pretty poor grammar, at that. I say that not to be mean, but to point out that this is an encyclopedia, not Facebook or other social media. Our articles are expected to be written in a formal tone, like books and newspapers, which includes using the right words in the right order, proper tense, punctuation, etc. Thank you in advance for understanding. Anything you can do to improve this encyclopedia (the reason we all volunteer our time here) would be welcome. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to recreate the Bella Cosmetics again without the writing look like promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ko San Lwin (talkcontribs) 09:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ko San Lwin: Do you have some connection with Bella Cosmetics? If so, you must read COI; if you are in any way employed or remunerated by Bella Cosmetics, you must also read and comply with WP:PAID. If not, then Ian Thomson's guide may be helpful:

If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything that is not you or something you are connected to, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.
2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find. Google Books is a good resource for this. Also, while search engine results are not sources, they are where you can find sources. Just remember that they need to be professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.
3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.
5) Combine overlapping summaries where possible (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports), repeating citations as needed.
6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 3 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion.

If you are writing about yourself, or someone or something you are connected with (such as a friend, family member, or your business), the following steps are different:

0) If the subject really was notable, you wouldn't need to write the article. Remember that articles are owned by the Wikipedia community as a whole, not the article subject or the article author. If you do not want other people to write about you, then starting an article about yourself is a bad idea.
8a) If the article is accepted, never edit it again. Instead, make edit requests on the article's talk page.
8b) If the article is rejected, there will be a reason given. Read it carefully and closely. If there are links in the reason, open them and read those pages.. --ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

bob turner, Robert l turner

how do I correct and add an item on my wiki bio?

I enjoy a nice write up on wikipedia but one item is incorrect. I graduated from St John's U in 1962 and then entered military service (1962 1964 active) Also, while you are at it, I received an honorary Degree in 2012 from SJU. Thank you. Bob Turner (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse Bob, you will need to be a bit more specific, there are 30 different Robert Turners on Wikipedia, you can always suggest changes on the article talk page, but you will need to provide a reliable published source for any content. Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Bob. Also have a look at AUTOPROB, which is specifically for people in your position. --ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
It seems the only Robert L. Turner for whom we have an article is not you (they were born in 1947, and would have been 15 years old in 1962 – a bit young for military service Face-smile.svg). You can see links to the articles about other Robert Turners at Robert Turner (a "disambiguation page"). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm guessing this is Bob Turner (American politician), who did graduate from St. John's. Deor (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 2409:4052:2315:2562:0:0:E3F:A8AD (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello unregistered editor. Do you have a question about how to edit Wikipedia? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

how to delete a draft I've made

I started a draft page for Maggie Lunn in 2017, and it was declined later that year. Fortunately, someone else started a page for Maggie Lunn towards the end of 2018 which is now in Wikipedia, so that is good. However, how do I get rid of the draft I started and which still appears to exist at [] ? It is not needed. I thought it would just vanish if I did not edit it for 6 months, but bots make edits and maybe reset the time? MerielGJones (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@MerielGJones: You could add {{Db-g7}} to the top of your draft, and explain in your edit summary. GoingBatty (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, many thanks for the advice. I have done this.--MerielGJones (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Snoqualmie Valley Record

Hello, just wondering if anyone could take a look at Draft:Snoqualmie Valley Record. I have submitted but would love a second look on it to make sure my fixes are up to standard.

Thanks, NoahRiffe (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@NoahRiffe: I don't understand some of the references. For example "George Astel, a printer and publisher, created the Snoqualmie Valley Record In 1923, to serve as another paper for the Snoqualmie Valley as well as a start for his printing business" is referenced with "Newly Released Microfilm".. Are you trying to say that the microfilm contains a newspaper article to support the statement? If so, please provide all the details of the newspaper article (e.g. newspaper title, article title, date, page, author). You can use {{cite news}} for this if you like, which does not require a URL. GoingBatty (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Utterly borked talkpage

I'd like to point out that Talk:Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson is utterly borked. It seems like sometime back around 2015-2019, somebody tried to add an archive template to that talkpage, but somehow managed to only terribly botch the code, resulting in the fact that everything on that talkpage ended up in the archive box's infobox instead.

I've tried to fix it myself (without saving any of my changes), but neither could I make the original code work, nor did any of my attempts to replace the archive box code by directly copy-pasting any of the templates found at Help:Archiving a talk page seem to work (either the entire talkpage stayed inside the new box, or the box mysteriously ended up at the bottom of the page, or I couldn't shrink the giant archive folder image).

Another thing to consider is that I'm not sure when this botched archive was actually added and where improperly archived stuff from that talkpage (from before 2015?) may have ended up, and whether putting a new archive template on that that talkpage, even if it would work, may actually overwrite and thus destroy archives of that talkpage set up by the improper archive code. -- (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, 46.93, and welcome to the Teahouse! Thanks for pointing this out; I think this edit should have fixed the problem. The page isn't set up for any automatic archiving, it looks like, so there shouldn't be any worries about overwriting the old archives; it would only happen manually anyway. It looks like the old archives are all at Talk:Jeffrey_Moussaieff_Masson/Archive_1 (which I manually added to the archive infobox); I see a bunch of messed up code in that archive, so I assume that the code was correct at one point, but someone accidentally moved part of the infobox itself while trying to archive a thread, leaving the talk page in the state you found it. Thanks again! Writ Keeper  23:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the issue! -- (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


How much citations does an article need? Ganeshboodoo (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ganeshboodoo: Enough so that it satisfies this rule: "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." See Wikipedia:Citing_sources for more info. Since every article is different, the number of citations in each article will be different. RudolfRed (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Spurious Heading in Table of Contents Box

I am beginning to create an article in my Sandbox at User:Rmhadsell/sandbox. I have added a Table of Contents, which incorrectly begins with the title of my article. How can I prevent this spurious first line? The Table of Contents should begin with 1 Biography. Rmhadsell (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rmhadsell: I removed the section heading that was showing first in the TOC. RudolfRed (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rmhadsell: It's best to look at how a decent existing article is organized and coded as a reference. See Amy Lee for a relevant example or perhaps other B or higher Quality articles from the grid at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Assessment#Article quality - current status (click on the linked numbers to see the list of articles for that cell). Articles should not have level-1 headings (= Like this =); they should be level 2 and below (== Like this ==, === And this ===). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Failure of Contents to Float at Left of Infobox

I am beginning to create an article in my Sandbox at User:Rmhadsell/sandbox. The first content section, headed "Biography", fails to float at the left of the Infobox. Instead, this section appears on the first line below the Infobox, leaving an undesirable number of blank lines above the first section. Rmhadsell (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: User:Rmhadsell/sandbox. @Rmhadsell: I am not seeing that issue. I see the initial text and the TOC at the same level as the infobox. RudolfRed (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

How can I make edits without being unconstructive?

 Ryanhooper1985 (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ryanhooper1985. You can find some general information in Wikipedia:Editing policy, but generally "unconstructive edits" are those deemed to not be in accordance with some Wikipedia policy or guideline. New editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines so it's understandable that they sometimes make mistakes. Even though they mean well and don't intend to make a bad edit, their lack of familiarity with Wikipedia can sometimes mean the edits they make aren't very good. Perhaps you should try taking the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure because it's one way for a new editor to become more familiar with how Wikipedia works. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia since that page also contains information that you might find helpful. Everyone makes mistakes when they start editing, so try not to get discouraged. Even experienced editors sometimes get their edits reverted by another editor. So, it's OK to make mistakes as long as you do your best to try not repeating the same mistake over and over again. The more you edit, the more you'll learn about Wikipedia and the less likely you'll be to make the same mistakes again. Good luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey Ryanhooper1985, making a constructive edit can be anything from correcting a typo to renaming an article (with good reason, of course). I've had a look at your edits on Ahmed Elmohamady; on one of them, I see that you added the following paragraph:
Became a bit of cult hero. Captained Villa when Jack Grealish was out. And cemented his reputation for pinging a superb ball in for Anwar El Ghazi to score the opener as Villa beat Derby in the 2018/19 play-off final. Elmo, as he is know in the Holte End, immediately turned to the Villa fans to celebrate such was the peach of his delivery. Known to be a popular member of the squad, with a superb work ethic and fantastic engine.
I can tell that you meant well, however your statement there wasn't really from a neutral point of view, if you think about it--there's a bit of bias towards Elmohady. Neutrality is a big thing on Wikipedia, because it allows for a fair and informative article.
Here's a possible rephrasing of your edit:
Elmohady captained Aston Villa during Jack Grealish's incapacitation, and soon became a popular and hard-working member of the squad.
I hope that helped! Rebestalic[leave a message....] 00:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Font size

FYI: Edited original question to rectify problem. Diff here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is the font size on the following progressively reducing? How is it resolved? What is the correct way for creating the graph headers?

Route 1

          Patronage bar graphs

Annual automobile equivalents                                                                                          00Annual passengers

Route 2

          Patronage bar graphs

Annual automobile equivalents                                                                                          000Annual passengers

Route 3

          Patronage bar graphs

Annual automobile equivalents                                                                                                    00Annual passengers

DMBanks1 (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: It appears to be because you're using {{s-end}}. I replaced them with {{col-end}} and it looks fine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: If anyone's puzzling over it, and Ten will forgive me for putting words in his mouth, the three chart titles above were originally rendered in decreasing font size, but are no longer because Tenryuu fixed the syntax. While we don't normally want to edit other people's posts, I'll assume this was necessary to avoid rendering the rest of this section (and possibly beyond in some circumstances) in the small font, which may have been unreadable to some. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu and AlanM1: Many thanks for your invaluable expertise. Any thoughts on a better way to create the chart headings? DMBanks1 (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@DMBanks1: I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for visually, but a lot of work was done on making graphs in cells over at COVID-19 pandemic in Canada#Provincial and territorial. Past the first two graphs in that section the provinces and territories are placed side-by-side in rows of 4. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I added an FYI so readers can see what the problem originally was and what was done to correct it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Chit2am

Hello, I was wondering to know what what the problem of the article I tried to published. thank you (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! The reference looks like a press release, and mentions he is performing in one concert. The criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. If he meets any of these criteria, gather your independent reliable sources (such as articles from magazines and newspapers), summarize what they say, and use those as your references. It may be WP:TOOSOON in Chit2am's career for an article. If so, you're welcome to try again when he becomes more successful. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Need to edit a highly protected page

Article name: Adam's bridge

The above article is wrongly published the information. It need to be changed, but eventually it can't be edited because the following page is highly protected and can't be edited. I need someone to change it and publish the correct information. Thank you. Hari 1213 (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hari 1213: The place to discuss this is the article's talk page, and I see you are already involved in discussions there. RudolfRed (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Hari 1213: Like you've been told over at the article's talk page, no, it's not being changed because of WP:COMMONNAME. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
It would be really great if, before bringing this here and other help pages several times a month, people were to actually read the article (which discusses the naming issues) and its talk page and its archives, where the overwhelming majority of discussion by editors is about this very subject. It seems people have gotten so used to tweeting their every thought that nobody bothers to listen/read before speaking/writing. Apologies for the rant. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
AlanM1, there seems to be a concerted campaign of canvassing off-WP. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Krish013/Archive. --ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
repinging AlanM1. --ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

So what will be your decision? No change it or keep it as it is? Hari 1213 (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hari 1214 You've been told what you can do. It's not enough for you to say that you think it needs to be changed. You need to present logical, sourced arguments, preferably based in Wikipedia policy, as to the reason for your proposed renaming. Wikipedia policy(especially WP:COMMONNAME) seems to be on the side of the current title of the article. You are free to disagree with what most English language sources use as the name of this geographic feature, but that it what we use because the sources do. You need to move on from this issue and stop constantly bringing it up until you have something new to offer. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have showed the real meaning and proof of ram setu bridge in discussion page. And also I've attached some references. What else i need to do? Guide me, i need to change this wrong information of ram setu bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari 1213 (talkcontribs) 13:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hari 1213 You need to communicate with and convince the majority of reliable sources in the English speaking world to use that name for this geographic feature. It isn't "wrong" any more than the name your language gives it is "wrong". New Zealand is not called New Zealand by the Māori people, but we use "New Zealand" because that is what most English language sources call it. The same goes for Ayers Rock which is called Uluru by the aboriginal Australians. Until you go on a quest to contact all English language sources that discuss this geographic feature and convince them to use the name you feel should be used, the article title is not going to change. The name you want to use is mentioned in the article. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Declined Article

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Water purification using magnetic nanoparticles

I am XLK123 and I just checked my messages, and found that my article regarding water purification using magnetic nanoparticles has been declined. I am not rebutting this decision, although the reason give was "that it looked like an advertisement". In what way does the article seem like an advertisement? In my opinion (I know is sort of irrelevant considering that it's my article) it is just a normal article about the patent, not promoting it or anything of the sort.

Please can someone explain to me why it has fallen under the category of advertisement, as I don't understand?

Also, once someone has replied, am I allowed to tweak the article in such a way that makes it less like an advertisement?

Thanks, XLK123 (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

XLK123, yes, you may work on the draft and try to raise it to the standard required for a Wikipedia article. I suspect the hardest part of this will be finding the reliable independent sources needed to establish that the topic is notable. Maproom (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Maproom, thank you but I'm still not sure what I'm meant to change to make it less like an advertisement. XLK123 (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@XLK123: Personally I don't believe it looks like an advertisement, but the draft in its current state is absolutely unfit to be its own article. I believe the reviewer took what I believe to be a legal disclaimer to be advertising the organisations responsible. The big problem that I see is that it doesn't delve into the subject any further than "it exists, and here are the patents and organisations to prove it". Are there any independent, reliable sources that you can draw from? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Separate from this looking nothing like an article, the only ref is a patent. Patents do not establish Wikipedia notability. I suggest you blank your current content and start over. Possible citations: David notMD (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocking user

Hi everyone, I was browsing the recent changes page, when I noticed that the user has had 4 warnings already, but vandalised again on StarStruck. Please can some admin please block the IP user, as this is his fifth warning.

XLK123 (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


FYI: Section merged to above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Please can the user be blocked, as they have had five warnings, but still they are vandalising.

XLK123 (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@XLK123: Anonymous user has been blocked. For future reference, you can submit reports of vandalism over at WP:ANV. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for Further Reading

At 17:23, 13 May 2020 I added Empire of the Summer Moon to Further Reading. At 18:14 on the same day TaivoLinguist removed it with the note "Not considered a reliable source by specialists."


Empire of the Summer Moon was a finalist of the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction in 2011. It has notes and a bibliography that includes many of the references in the Wikipedia article and more. It is a well researched book and should be considered Further Reading, however I’m new to Wikipedia editing and I don’t know what standards are needed.

What is the criteria for the Further Reading section? Who are the specialists needed to OK a book like this one? Carlislejp51 (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link to our article on the book's author S. C. Gwynne. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Carlislejp51. This is a form of content dispute. Appeals for general principles tend not to be very fruitful at Wikipedia: discussing the specific case with the other editors involved may be harder work, but usually gives better results in the long run. I suggest you discuss this with TaivoLinguist on the article's talk page - though I notice that there has previously been discussion there involving Gwynne's book. --ColinFine (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Notability of a new concept: first stock exchange for music royalties

Hi there,

I wanted to tap into the collective insight of the Wikipedia community to help me understand whether a company I am following closely is notable enough to be featured on Wikipedia. The company in question is a start-up, nevertheless it provides a concept that is new to both the world of financial services and music: a stock exchange where everyone can trade music royalties. I believe the uniqueness of this proposition makes the company, or at least the concept they promote, worth of an encyclopedic mention as it represent a new line of financial services which was not existent before its appearance. Slowly, this will become more prominent as a category and more organisations will start offering similar services and therefore expand the category. As the first company to create this new financial service, are they worth a mention here?

They have been around for less than two years and have several mentions in international press in Europe, albeit mostly stating factual information. They do lack multiple long third-party analysis articles, which I understand are a key criteria in defining the notability of a potential new article.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Thanks Piteress (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Piteress Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. A company merits an article on Wikipedia if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is coverage beyond brief mentions, routine announcements, or other brief coverage. "Independent" means that sources like staff interviews, the company website, or press releases are not acceptable for establishing notability. Most "startups" do not have significant coverage in independent sources- and you state that this company does not have much third party coverage- this means that it probably does not meet the definition of a notable company at this time. That does not mean that it won't in the future, just not at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

copying and pasting from public government research paper?

is copying and pasting from like sites and research paper ok? they arent copyrighted as i think ? not all line but a paragraph or so. I edited several pages like adding from not copy right source but from research paper and modified some statements. Also is there good place to learn wiki more. like how to add tables i can do simple things like \[\[ something \]\] and \<ref\> ... \< ref \> Machinexa (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Its difficult to learn wikipedia from those page . They are overwhelming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machinexa (talkcontribs) 09:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Machinexa. If you look at [], they say that material created by or for the US government is public domain, but their site also hosts material that is copyright, so you need to check the individual item. But I'm not sure why you would want to: text produced somewhere else for a different purpose is not often appropriate for Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to quote the material: see quote.
On tables: tables are difficult in HTML, and WikiMarkup offers different symbols, but can't provide a more friendly approach. The basic pattern is to start and end with {| and |}, each on a line by itself; and start a new row with |-; but there are lots of complexities. See Help:Tables. --ColinFine (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Machinexa: If you want to make simple tables, you might be better off creating them in Visual Editor, though you will need WP:Source Editor to do more complicated things. The trick is to take one step at a time and work in your sandbox, learning as you go. Trying to work on live tables only results in big problems, in my view. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Machinexa. Evne when government content is not under copyright, it should still be properly attributed to its source, because you didn't write it, and neither did any Wikipedia editor. See our guideline on plagiarism and see also Wikipedia:Quotations. You might also want look at Help:Editing and Help:Cheatsheet DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

David Brent

May I aks why the edit talking about him being a fat tragic man, was unconstructive. Thanks Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9034:AE00:ADD7:9DD0:D8E1:7502 (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This IP started editing 24 May and is now 48-hour blocked. All edits have been reverted. Very likely same person had been editing same and other articles on 9 May as 2a02:c7f:9034:ae00:5d93:7849:4a89:866b (all reverted, not blocked, not active other than 9 May). David notMD (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@David notMD: Very definitely the same disruptive editor, judging by these contributions across the entire /64 range for the IPv6 address. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
And given same small set of articles being edited, same editor back in 2019 as,,,,, and The 31s stopped in June 2019 and the 2A02's began in July 2019. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

User page

Hi, I wanted to know how to add templates in my user page about my language, country and other info. Kindly tell me.  Heyday to you (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Heyday to you, and welcome to the Teahouse. Those are called Userboxes: you can read about them at WP:Userbox. --ColinFine (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Heyday to you, in addition to this, the easiest way to add them is just to find another user's page that does what you want, and copy the relevant parts to your own. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 15:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Did I erase the personal info page???

E.D. Hirsch Jr- I am his second wife and egocentrically decided to add myself on his personal info section. Now when I call it up all personal info has disappeared! I am so sorry to have fouled this up. The only reference that can be cited is our marriage certificate Can you help me? Thank you K123455 (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

K123455 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You unintentionally broke the template being used to display the information, this is why it did not appear after your edit. I have reversed the change. Please note that privately held documents cannot be used as a source; we need some source that is publicly available. As you have a conflict of interest, you should request another make an edit related to your marriage on the article talk page(Talk:E. D. Hirsch), once you have a publicly available source. I believe what you say, but we need to have something that can be verified. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@K123455: Example: Newspaper marriage announcement or an article about him (or you) mentioning that you are married (and hopefully when). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Do note, K123455, that a personal web site can be considerd to be a published source for this kind of non-controversial information under WP:ABOUTSELF, so if your husband includes a "Biography" section on his personal web site (if he has one) which mentions his second marriage, that would be enough to source such a change. A newspaper announcement of the wedding might also be enough. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Odd citations by an editor

I noticed some edits adding citations by User:Habelgmsa (see Special:Contributions/Habelgmsa) specifically when they added links to Loopnet as citations for Washington County, Oregon (diff)

I'm not sure how to proceed to get more eyes on this or what is the official process for something like this when it is generally about an editor affecting a number of pages? Mlepisto (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Mlepisto. I have reverted the additions to Washington County, Oregon by Habelgmsa and placed a warning on User talk:Habelgmsa. But that editor's added cites to Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug look plausible to me. I am not sure what is going on, but this report has probably sufficed to get additional eyes on the situation. If you are sure that vandalism is going on, you can make a report at WP:AIV in future. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what the hashtags in the edit summaries are about, but I've advised them about that as well. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The citations added to Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug in attempt to fulfill "citation needed" not acceptable; all reverted. David notMD (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
In general, Habelgmsa is going from article to article, seemingly at random (WIDE range of topics), and adding citations in response to citation needed tags. Some appear accurate, some not.
After a bit of digging, this appears to be a world effort by librarians (1Lib1Ref) to reduce the backlog of Wikipedia 'citations needed.' Not clear what happened at Washington County, Oregon. At Nonsteroidal, the refs were not WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Apparently these events happen twice a year and is supported by the Wikipedia Library Team. Details over at meta:The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

My printer is not properly installed. Do you work on them or just the computer?

 2600:6C5E:147F:DE55:6467:9589:E87E:B728 (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the help desk for how to use Wikipedia. We offer no computer repair services. You might be able to get some advice at WP:RDC, if you explain what printer you have and what errors you are seeing. RudolfRed (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Diverse Photos Added to DC-3 Article on 17 May Deleted This AM; Other Opinions, Please?

My photo edit of [] done on May 17 was deleted today because "Those images do not aid understanding of the subject" and I disagree. I can see deleting some, as there were a number added, but as I said in the edit comments:

  • Most photos went to the lower right, where there was adequate (wasted) white space,
  • Photos were more diverse than the rest (one from astern, one close in chopping the wings so the fuselage shows better, one fueling, etc.),
  • They were often cropped 16:9, so they can be used as Apple Wallpaper or PC Background (admittedly a minor point).


  • My photos showed DC-3s actually doing something - supporting skydiving - surely that's 'aiding to understand',
  • The first photo, placed to contrast the first pic below the infobox - an interior empty except for seats/aisle - better shows the scale of a DC-3's interior.

I've had my photos undone a couple of times and saw the point of view of the editor, but this time I disagree - they do aid understanding of the subject, IMHO, and they make the article more interesting, seeing photos rather than empty white space. They aid understanding at least as much, if not more than, any of the existing photos. If there is an objection to the number of shots, I can reduce them. This is my first instance where I disagree with an editor and am unclear if this is even the best place to object, but I assume someone will tell me if I should do something differently. BrettA343 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi BrettA343 and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you and the editor had a discussion on these images? That is what I usually recommend first so you can both understand and see each others point of view? Galendalia Talk to me CVU Graduate 19:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Teahouse Host
@BrettA343: As Galendalia kindly mentioned, discussion is a normal part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I recommend that you have the discussion at the article talk page - Talk:Douglas DC-3 - in the hopes that multiple knowledgeable editors can be involved and come to a consensus as to which photos to use. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with the Draft:TheRunawayGuys

I probably know the answer to this, and they probably fall under WP:TOOSOON, however can anyone help with the citations for the draft. I feel like they can be an article due to the notability of the group through Direct Relief and conventions, (Thrown Controllers). Not to mention, as entertainers they are "significant in roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", mainly the production of Thrown Controllers at multiple conventions such as PAX and Momocon. Also as entertainers, they "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" as they were one of the first collaborative YouTube channels, even beating the GameGrumps. If it isn't possible to make it an article, I'll understand, I'll just be a bit disappointed as I put a lot of time and effort into the draft. Thank you for reading. Captain Galaxy (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Captain Galaxy: One of the suggestions in the big red template at the top of the draft is to add WikiProjects to the draft talk page, which I have done for you at Draft talk:TheRunawayGuys. You might also want to ask for assistance at Talk:Chuggaaconroy. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Captain Galaxy: Thanks man, I appreciate the help. Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

How do I edit a wikipedia page?

I logged in, and saw the message that I am editing the Wikipedia page, but I am unable to find the text that I wish to edit. What is happening? I see only the general information about editing and do not see the file that I wish to edit while in this edit mode. ???? Kermit1941 (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kermit1941: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to improve it. Can you let us know which article you are trying to edit and what you are trying to change? Some text gets added automatically via templates, so it might not show up when you hit the edit button. RudolfRed (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


I read about editnotices, and it said that I can add an editnotice to my user page. The page about editnotices said that there would be a red link in the top left that would allow me to create an editnotice, but I do not see it. O-dog222 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

O-dog222 I believe that you would follow this link to create an editnotice for your user page. -- a lad insane (channel two) 21:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
When I followed the link, I got an editnotice(on the editnotice creation page) about the page name being invalid. It still let me create the editnotice(for my userpage), however when I edited my userpage to check, it didn't show up. This may be a peculiarity of {{Editnotice userpage}}, but I think I somehow edited the wrong page, which is odd, because you spelled my username correctly. O-dog222 (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@O-dog222: It's User:O-dog222/Editnotice with capital E. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! O-dog222 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Bad format

I tried to add some information about the current town council of Oviedo, but the format is complicated. Vox (Spain) need to be colour-coded, and all the cells need to be inline. Undurbjáni (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Undurbjáni: Appears we had an edit conflict. Feel free to change the colours, but my diff should have fixed how the table looks. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

George J. F. Clarke

I don't understand the purpose of the Tea House as it pertains to me. I am the direct descendant of George JF Clarke. I have written two books on the family. The editing I have done on his page are (1) updated factual information ie. his death date is October 20, 1836. (2) Rewritten the reasons for Honoria Cummings Clarke needing to have her four remaining children living in Florida baptized Catholic. it was not a whim, rather it was because under the Spanish flag you had to be Catholic to hold onto or inherit your estate. (3)Clarke fell in love with Flora who was John Leslie's slave. He purchased her and freed her. The manumission papers state clearly that he has given her her freedom so she can live free like him. She can own property, have her own business and do as she pleases. They had eight children - Maria Felicia Francesca "Rose", James Fredrick, Thomas Santiago, Joseph josef Luis Josie, Daniel L. A., john Nepomuceo Diego, William Roman and George Philip Felipe. (4) His will is important because he owned such a fast amount of land and he left each of his children 1/8 and because there were 8 children it took nearly 100 years of constant law suits between the large family and descendants and the United States government to settle payments for damage and loss of the property due to the Patriots War. This is why there is so much information on this family. Finally, I don't understand some of the footnotes used in the area of the family. Much of it is not relevant to Spanish Florida between 1700s and 1800s. Much of the footnotes are only relevant after 1821 when Florida becomes part of the United States. If you want to connect me to one of the editors so we can remove those footnotes and references, I would welcome that help.

Thank you

Gylbert Garvin Coker Cokerg (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your most recent edit. You need to understand how references are included, see Help:Referencing for beginners. As you were attempting to cite your own book you need to read about conflict of interest and about original research, and rather than editing the article directly you should make suggestions at the article talk page: Talk:George J. F. Clarke. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Cokerg. I understand your desire to try improve George J. F. Clarke, but you're going to most likely be considered to have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with anything written about him on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community, therefore, highly encourages you to avoid directly editing the article as much as possible, and instead use the article's talk page to propose changes to the article so as to give other editors a chance to assess them in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please see WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and WP:COIADVICE for more on this, but I will add more detailed information about this containing links to various information pages to your user talk page for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

What's the intent of the WikiProject article?

What's the intent of WikiProject? Does it cover something not covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject? WikiProjects exist inside Wikipedia and no where else if I'm not mistaken... so I'm just confused as to why there is an additional article on the subject matter that's "external facing". BthompsonHV 01:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia article on an encyclopedic topic (i.e., a topic sufficiently covered in reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG). We have no rule specifically barring the existence of a Wikipedia article on a subject that is also the subject of a project page. BD2412 T 01:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)