From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Most recent archives
856, 857, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, 868, 869, 870, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875

Had article rejected[edit]

I have an article rejected Draft:Mareeg Mediaeven though it has has lot of sources from web that I have cited I have cited. The reason they are saying it needs to be sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However all similar site are included in wikipedia with less references? Is acceptance depend on the editors.Why firt rejection seems fair as it only asked to Fix reference errors. can some one shed a light on this to tell me the next step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warsamedhuje (talkcontribs) 2018-12-14T00:45:56 (UTC)

New article, how to improve and publish[edit]

Hi, First thanks for your efforts and help, I am interested in learning how to improve my article and finally publish it. My article is about the international art association the Chamber of Public Secrets, this group of artists and curators has form an influential movement and has been active in Northern Europe during the last 10 years. Kindly advice what steps I need to take before the article can be published. Note: the article is in my sandbox. Thank you indeed, Anouti Abeid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoutiabed (talkcontribs) 03:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Anoutiabed, as far as I can tell you don't have a sandbox. Maybe you're referring to a sandbox of some other account. Can you please give a link to the sandbox you're asking about? Maproom (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The list of your contributions also does not any indicate the draft you cited. I did a quick search about the subject matter and I did see some sources available. So it would help if you can direct us to your draft so we can provide you with helpful suggestions. Darwin Naz (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Local government magazines as source[edit]

Hi everyone. I'd like to know if it's allowed to cite locally-published magazines as reference to an article. Here in the Philippines, some of the city government have their own magazines without any online presence. Thanks. Carlobulletinph (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Carlobulletinph. I edited your post so that it has its own separate section, given it has a different subject. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how to #citeref in visual editor.[edit]

Want to reproduce the Carlo 1996 referencing here; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talkcontribs) 09:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

HI Chemicalnasties. References in Visual Editor are tricky but improving. At the moment to use this type of reference, which is {{sfn}}, click on Insert rather than Cite, then choose Template. At "Add a Template" type sfn and click Add template. Now you will see the fields for the template. Put Carlo in "1", 1996 in "2", and the page numbers in "p" then click Insert. The reference will be there. However Visual Editor will not show the reference in the reference list and will not let you preview to see the reference. But it will be there once you Publish. Hope this helps. Currently doing anything complicated with references is best done with the source editor. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Worked. Thanks.Chemicalnasties (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ann B. Ross page: formatting references[edit]

I went through the Wikipedia Adventure thingy and thought I could use "Advanced" to set up headings in an existing page that I was adding to (for Ann B. Ross But this is the second time (1st was on a sandbox project) I've tried to set up a reference heading but the footnote ended up somewhere else (the bottom of the page) instead of in the References section. So how do I get the link set up? Thanks.Tarkiwi25 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

See this edit. The explanation of the process is at WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you.
Although I'm old school enough to have been trained to save so often that doing so is something like a tic, I managed to get caught out this time. Several kind people went to the page and did various things before I got back to the page and found that I was stuck with an edit conflict. I know enough to check the View History, and the Edit Conflict instructions could show me some of the revisions. But this has not been a pleasant experience.
I had expected a message in response to my query, but since I didn't see a notice, e.g., under Talk, I resumed editing (without realizing that there would be a problem with saving my work).
While it might seem unreasonable for me to feel that what resulted is somewhat unfair, I rather wish that the three of you who responded directly on the page had stuck with telling me where to go rather than interfering. Because I didn't recognize that someone else had intervened, I came back to editing with more information gained from doing the research to make a real change to this page. But the edit conflict situation had gotten so entangled that I couldn't work my way through to sorting out my revisions within your collective revisions.
After copying my work onto a .docx, I gave up on editing the page and simply closed it to get out of the mess. I will attempt to resume my editing on what I hope will be a clean slate once I think you 3--and anyone else--might be done. It isn't at all that I have proprietary feelings about this page. I'm not a newbie to editing, but I am a newbie to Wikipedia editing. The way this has played out would probably dissuade someone less experienced with editing and less determined to edit on Wikipedia. Jus' sayin'.Tarkiwi25 (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Need an experienced eye[edit]


I tried to make one simple edit as a new user and have hit behaviour I have trouble understanding from another experienced editor. I made a simple and factual edit only to have it deleted citing policy. When I could not see how the policy invalidated my edit and asked for clarification, the editor did not give it. He has decided to delete the whole section that my edit was made in again citing, without justification, the policy. In doing so he has deleted content that definitely does not contravene the policy. In addition, he had the page locked so that I could not make edits without his review even though I did not try to nor did I engage in any behaviour other than asking for reversal and explanation on the talk page. I would appreciate someone who is more experienced to look over this. Is this normal behaviour on Wikipedia? If it is I am probably going to quit using or considering to donate because it seems the information quality is debased by this kind of behavior. This has been a very poor experience for a new user who was motivated to join and make a change because something I saw was out of date. The talk page where I have detailed this is Talk:Low-carbohydrate_diet#Position_of_major_governmental_and_medical_organizations. MetabolicMadness (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi MetabolicMadness. You were WP:BOLD and subsequently WP:REVERTed; so, you shoulld now continue to follow WP:BRD. FWIW, when you make a change to an article that is reverted based on specific policy/guideline reasons, the onus is actually on you to establish a consensus in favor of the change(s) you want to make. The best way to do this is to show how relevant policies and guidelines support your position; if your argument is reasonable and follows relevant policies and guidelines, others will likely support it.
As for quiting the project or not donating to the project, you can decide to do one or both of those things if you want. However, claiming you're going to do such things is sometimes seen by others as a bit of WP:PRAM or WP:NOTHERE behaviour and isn't going to help establish a consensus in your favor. Your best bet here is to continue Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and give others interested in the subject matter a chance to comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I thought I made a strong case as you can see in the talk page. The behaviour to completely delete the section (with existing content) seems to be a further denial because I pointed out these were strong tertiary sources. It seems no one has read or no one cares about these changes and no one except me and the other editor have written anything. As to being WP:PRAM or WP:NOTHERE it's not so much a threat, it's just how I feel at this kind of behaviour (reverting first the change, then when I made a case, locking the page and deleting the whole section to deny the validity of such information at all) when I made a small factual change which I don't regard as WP:BOLD ie contentious at all and worthy of reversion. No one else seems to care about this on the talk page beyond a sole editor who has more rights than a newbie to have a discussion and establish consensus. Wouldn't that make you question the value of Wikipedia's content & make you reluctant to try other changes? MetabolicMadness (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:BOLD means we as editors are OK in going ahead and trying to make improvements to articles without feeling the need to discuss things in advance or get some form of pre-approval. If the edits we make are seen as others as being improvements, they'll stick; if not, they'll probably be undone completely of further improved upon in some way by another editor. If nobody says anything, then it's OK to assume WP:SILENCE until somebody does. If an edit we make is eventually undone by another editor, either shortly thereafter or even after some time has passed, then it's time for us to follow WP:BRD, unless the removal is a clear case of vandalism or a pretty significant policy/guideline violation. The talk page discussion you started is only a day old and is about an article which might not be being watched by tons of editors; so, you're probably not going to get a lot of responses right away. Maybe you should try posting a Template:Please see at some of the WikiProject talk pages listed at the top of the talk page or even at WT:MEDRS to let others know about the discussion. As long as you keep the post simple and don't appear to be WP:CANVASing, there's nothing wrong with trying to get others involved in the discussion. Try and remember that all editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs who sometimes get WP:BUSY; so, it may take some time before someone else responds.
You should also try and stick to discussing the content in question and avoid commenting on contributors themselves; moving discussions in such a direction often makes things worse and things are often posted which turn out later to be untrue; for example, the other editor didn't "lock" the article; it was protected by an administrator back in July 2018 because of some serious disruption.
Finally, this is just my own personal opinion, but your edit was not a small factual change and certainly is not a minor edit. The edit you made was the very first one made by your account and was made to an article which has a history of being disrupted, and it was reverted by an editor who appears to be very experienced in dealing with these types of articles and with WP:MEDRS; so, it doesn't seem totally surprising that your edit was undone. Now, you just have to establish a consensus for making the change on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As noted, the proper place for this debate is the Talk page of the article itself. I sympathize with your frustration, because you have already been doing that at length and the only person participating is the one who you are opposing. I suggest patience. Other edits may join the discussion. Nothing is lost - all previous additions (and deletions) are preserved in View history. And if you look at View history, you will see that you are neither the first nor likely the last person wanting to make sizable changes to this article. In the meantime, consider editing other articles. David notMD (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)



Recently my article was declined and I figured out why it was declined. I respect the decision. What are you looking for in an article that would be accepted? And if I was to change it, could i just edit the old article or do I have to create a new one?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey Moody98 (talkcontribs) 07:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Davey Moody98 and welcome to the Teahouse. You might like to read WP:Autobiography, WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Referencing for beginners, and WP:Notability. You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which the subject has been written about in detail, and summarise what is written in those sources. Most of us here will never have articles about ourselves because Wikipedia does not host autobiographies. Dbfirs 07:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
This must be about Draft:Davey Moody. In principle, you can work on it and try to improve it; nothing would be achieved by creating a new version. But no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Maproom (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
No references, no article. References need to be what people have written about Davey Moody, not what Moody has written himself. David notMD (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

How to link the sfn to the bibliography[edit]


How do I link the sfn eg: Ref 2 to the bibliography?

Here is an example of it working (see ref 2 again); — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talkcontribs) 10:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Chemicalnasties. Please sign all your posts here with four tildes (~~~~). In order to use a reference in that way, the easiest way is to put the bibliography item in a Cite template such as {{Cite book}}, and add the parameter "|ref=harv". You can see how I've done that here. rchard2scout (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Into which field do I put ref=harv. Reading here should it be in the anchor field?

Attempted it but did not seem to work. Once it is done do I have to redo the sfn entries I have already done or will they automatically link? Thanks Chemicalnasties (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Got it. I see you did do it and I have to recreate any existing links to make it work. Thanks. Chemicalnasties (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Updating Reference Links to Our Website[edit]

Hello! Currently on this page: there is a reference link to our companies blog article (The Bouqs Companyu) but the link is going to a website scraper called web archive. I would like to update this link to point the article on our website here: to gain this link back. Could anyone help me with how I should proceed? I have never edited on Wikipedia yet and have very low permissions.

Thank you for you help! Tiffany The Bouqs Company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seobouqs (talkcontribs) 16:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Seobouqs. You should definitely not do this. Blogs are not reliable sources, and you have a conflict of interest. The link is promotional and does not belong on Wikipedia. Please comply with our paid editing disclosure, which is mandatory. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to our attention, @Seobouqs: a quick check showed that the old version of your page better served the purposes of the Flower article, but that another website could do the job even better. So, we used that as a citation instead. Thank you for helping us improve Wikipedia. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Sad wish we had never asked for help to update was a very good link for us :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seobouqs (talkcontribs) 17:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but Wikipedia does not exist to promote your business, or any other business. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I have also nominated The Bouqs Company for deletion as there is no discernible evidence that they are notable enough for an article. Theroadislong (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to an anchor tag[edit]

Is it possible to redirect a page to an anchor tag? If so, how do I construct the link? Thanks all! *sips tea* — Preceding unsigned comment added by J spaine (talkcontribs) 17:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you can redirect to a subsection. The easiest way to do this is to click on the section from the table of contents, and then cut and paste the tail end of the URL as the redirect link, like Colin R. Turner#Bibliography. If you want to create a redirect page, the code is #REDIRECT [[Page name]] or #REDIRECT [[Page name#Section title]], depending on where you want to redirect to. Hope this helps. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to remove an unsourced, unclear line from an article?[edit]

Apologies, it's been quite some time since I've contributed to Wikipedia. While browsing Web scraping#United_States, I noticed a line tacked on at the end of the section that seems to be unsourced opinion. Specifically:

Internet Archive collects and distributes significant number of publicly available webpages without it is considered to be copyright violation.

It's quite difficult to determine the meaning of, and seems to be someone's personal gripe with the Internet Archive rather than something that belongs on the page.

It was added back in April 2018, and I'm not sure if there should be discussion on the Talk page, or something of the sort before removing that line.

Caffeinewriter (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced opinion indeed, with bad grammar to boot! Go ahead and remove it, Caffeinewriter. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 18:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate it A lad insane. I had a feeling that was the correct course of action, but better safe than sorry. Cheers, and
Caffeinewriter (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

when is the threshold when I no longer become a new user?[edit]

and also how can I easily make autmated edits without autowiki browser or huggle ?see topic above thanks Face-smile.svg--I love rpgs (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Welcome! Here's the user access info you're looking for Wikipedia:User access levels#User groups. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Writing a new page for indie video game[edit]

Hi! I'm a hobbyist game developer, and recently got enough outside exposure to feel like it's worth making some sort of Wikipedia listing about my game, Nepenthe. However, I can’t seem to get the necessary dispassionate/authoritative tone down, so I'd really appreciate it if somebody unconnected with the industry could help me write it.

Here are the references I've collected so far (not sure if all of them are appropriate for Wikipedia):

The Store page itself:

Indie Games +:

Digital Chumps:

RPG Site:

Boston Bastard Brigade:

Gaming Trend:

Referenced in this article by Polygon:

Original Kickstarter page:


Yitzilitt (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Yitz

@Yitzilitt: If you read the reason why the article was rejected, you'd see that the problem is not simply tone but selection of sources. What you need are at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the game but in no way connected to you or its distributors. This will establish notability.
Of the sources you listed, the only ones with editorial boards (a pretty simple standard for what qualifies as professional and not just a blog registered in a shell company run by the blogger) are Indie Games+, Gaming Trend, and Polygon (however, Nepenthe is only mentioned in passing in the Polygon article, which is not the in-depth coverage required). I can't find any indication that the Digital Chumps or Boston Bastard Brigade has an editorial board. The rest are not independent.
Once you find a third source, follow these instructions for how to write an article that doesn't get rejected or deleted and there should be no further problems.
Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Yitzilitt: Unfortunately, since it's your own game, writing about it runs you afoul of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. There's more general info here Wikipedia:Articles for creation. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Timtempleton: He was using the Articles for Creation process, he just didn't cite enough independent sources, which was why the draft was rejected. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: I assumed there was no article since I didn't see a link. But did you see this? Nepenthe (video game)? Are we talking about a different video game? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah - I see - that's the article and it was just created.
TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Salut! Hi![edit]

Someone has messed up this page Hellodadbot (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hellodadbot Can you be more specific about what is wrong? I reviewed the page and it seems OK. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

About its future fleet and destinations have no citation. Hellodadbot1234 (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

If unsourced info was controversial or otherwise troubling, it would be deleted for having no sourcing. In this case, being a flight schedule, the article is already marked as needing citations. That's as much as we need to prompt people to find sourcing. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Citing Math[edit]

I recently started editing Wikipedia and I decided to start in the subject area I know best -- astronomy. I began by reviewing astronomical objects and I noticed that many objects were missing properties and others had extremely rough estimates of said properties. The sources provided in the articles did not provide the missing and estimated properties, so I decided to calculate them myself. I did not fill them in yet, but I was wondering if it would be possible to reference my math somehow so that I could provide a more complete and detailed description of the objects and include more precise (or just include altogether) distance, magnitude, luminosity, etc. If I can't do this, I completely understand. Thank you for your help. NickBar1213

Welcome to Wikipedia. This is specific to astronomy, so I suggest you post your comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Regards. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
On a more general note, what you are proposing is original research - not allowed. Have you searched for published content that matches or is close to your own calculations? A slow solution would be to get your work published in a peer-reviewed journal, and then hope that some other editor cites your work as improving the article (Wikipedia frowns on editors referencing their own work). David notMD (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I doubt I could get an article published (or could even write it) about one quality of a celestial body, but thank you for your help! Just, in case, I will hop over to the astronomy talk section to see what they think. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickBar1213 (talkcontribs) 00:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Navbox in middle of page[edit]

Hello, I am editing the article Internet censorship circumvention, and there is a table in the middle of the article in the "Software" section that provides similar info to one of the navboxes at the bottom ("Internet censorship circumvention technologies"). I'm thinking that the table itself doesn't offer much useful information, and it would be better just to incorporate its content into the navbox. However, I think it's helpful to have the list of software in the page, as opposed to at the bottom where it might be missed. Could I replace the table in the article with the navbox template, or is it convention to not put navboxes in the middle of the page? Weinshel (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd leave it as is. The table allows greater detail and fits well in the article. The Navbox is not as detailed but serves well as a general guide to the overall ecosystem. I've never seen a navbox in the middle of a page - they are always at the bottom, per MOS:ORDER. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the feedback! Weinshel (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Unstable Information[edit]

If info has been produced, leaving the audience at a cliff-hanger, can I sharea possibility? A new trailer came out for Godzilla: King of the Monsters, and I want to share the newest monster possibilities in the article. The ideas are pretty likely, but I need confirmation on wether or not sharing this info is allowed here.Anguirus3DS (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You have to be careful about including original research. See WP:OR. If your information is published somewhere in a reliable source, then you can include the info and cite the source. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 02:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

My submission don't have review yet, please help[edit]

I submitted a page last week and haven't received feedback (approval or disapproval). Would love to know how could I proceed. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohjesabee (talkcontribs) 00:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I see the article in your sandbox, but it doesn't appear to have been submitted yet. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation. My opinion is that it's a bit light now, and could use more sourcing to demonstrate notability. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 02:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Ohjesabee. I assume that you are talking about User:Ohjesabee/sandbox, but that page is not currently submitted for review. Please read Template:AFC submission/submit, and place the template described there at the top of your sandbox. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey Ohjesabee, we told you effectively the same thing the last time you asked that question. —teb728 t c 02:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
First, third and fourth refs are to Youtube; not accepted as suitable refs by Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

An article about a live person[edit]

Hi All,
I have written an article about a live person.
Yesterday this person made a demonstration in the middle of the road, and was put in fences on the sidewalk by the police.
As a reaction, the person tried to commit a suicide, but the police quickly seized the pill box which the person held. It was fully recorded in a video on Facebook.
Is it possible to write it in the article about the person? Less than a year ago, the person said in the Knesset that it would commit a suicide, and it was written in the Knesset's protocol. Dgw (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Without knowing more, it's hard to tell whether the event is notable enough itself - it depends on the depth and breadth of media coverage, and to a lesser degree, to the event's lasting significance. For notability guidelines, see Wikipedia:Notability. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 02:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dgw, discuss it on the article talk page. —teb728 t c 02:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your useful assistance. I looked around and there was no media echo. Therefore I would NOT write about it. I also took an example from Yigal Bashan. Nothing was written. In Hebrew is was written. Dgw (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Using the Church's official name in its first reference, and an accepted shortened name in secondary references.[edit]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints through President Russell M. Nelson has said that "Mormon" and "LDS Church" are offensive nicknames that detract from the Church's focus: Jesus Christ. The nicknames "Mormon" or "LDS Church" are therefore requested to be removed in reference to the church in respectful publications. Wiki pages explaining the origination and use of these nicknames are appropriate but there are many pages on Wikipedia that could and should use the accepted/appropriate names of the Church instead of the nicknames. I'd like to help.

I tried to edit the page Missionary(LDS Church) to reflect these requests but was stopped. Will you help? Thanks, Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendespain (talkcontribs) 03:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Bendespain. The procedure for requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves is given at WP:RM#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. —teb728 t c 04:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Bendespain. The relevant policy is MOS:LDS. --ColinFine (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Bendespain, you might be interested in the discussion going on about that issue. Schazjmd (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous Account[edit]

Hello, I would lile to create and edit/add to pages about places in my hometown. But I don't want people knowing about my location. Is there a way I could have an anonymous account and not violate Wikipedia's alternate account policies? A 10 fireplane Imform me 03:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@A 10 fireplane: Unless you tell people offline what your Wikipedia user name is, or you ever say on here what your real name is, your account is already anonymous. Privacy is one of the purposes listed at WP:VALIDALT, though. The only indication as to your location is the statement that you're from Texas, which might as well be the biggest state in the US (what with Alaska being so empty and all). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson:ok cool, I'm not to good with technology and wasn't sure if there was some way to know I was unaware of. Thank you Face-smile.svg A 10 fireplane Imform me 04:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

New wiki page for Matt Lange[edit]


I a created a new page for DJ/Producer, Matt Lange. What steps are needed to take to make this page public on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmattsimpson (talkcontribs) 05:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Itsmattsimpson:, welcome to the Teahouse. I removed the proposed article text from this page, since this is not the place for that. As for your sandbox article, it is unfortunately entirely promotional - almost every single sentence would have to be fundamentally rewritten for it to read like an encyclopedia article rather than an advert for the person. Also note that Wikipedia, iTunes, and Facebook should not be used as sources. More information about that here. --bonadea contributions talk 06:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
It is a bio of factual context, which is exactly what wikipedia is supposed to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmattsimpson (talkcontribs) 06:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 08:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
This excerpt from what you wrote is exactly what Wikipedia is not: "...defying the unwritten rules of the digital age by diving even deeper into modular synth roots under a modern electronic translation, putting his raw, textured sound on a tier untouched by other producers in his realm." David notMD (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Page layout problem[edit]

The article York County, Virginia had its "Climate" subheading removed, and I replaced it, but the page layout is now messed up. I'd like to move the climate chart higher on the page, if possible, as there seems to be room for it. How do I do this? And, is that the best solution?--Quisqualis (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You could move the whole "Climate" subsection to above the two preceding subsections, but it would still look odd. The problem is caused by having a subsection with no text, just a graph. Maproom (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Quisqualis and Maproom: I made the graph to no float: Special:Diff/873454050. Please see if it looks OK now. --CiaPan (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for anchoring that chart. A little white space can be lived with!--Quisqualis (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Changing my name on my page[edit]

Sorry, I posted this without a subject. Trying again. I'm a transgender guy and an author and I need to change my name on my page. I've done so within it but not the title of the page itself as you see. Any help gratefully accepted.

Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratfuzz (talkcontribs) 09:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ratfuzz: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You probably should confirm your identity with Wikipedia by emailing the address at the end of the paragraph found at this link. Please note that it is not "your page" but an article about you. The title of the article about you can be changed by moving it to a new title. Is the change of your name and/or identity discussed in any reliable source that can be verified? 331dot (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm duly corrected. I will have to take some time to read through this stuff as I don't yet understand how to verify my name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratfuzz (talkcontribs) 10:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ratfuzz: I have posted some welcome information on your user talk page. Any reliable source that mentions your identity and/or name that you now go by would be fine. A news story, something from your publisher like a biography of you on their website, etc. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Note that right now this individual's "page" resembles social media or a resume more than an encyclopedia article. Sources are limited to a blog and two commercial publishing sites. If better sources cannot be found, we may not have an article.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
No, he meets WP:ANYBIO as he has won a notable award, and that is already reliably sourced (I'm not sure why you don't think Locus Magazine is not reliable). The article should be trimmed to remove trivia, but it's not a candidate for deletion. --bonadea contributions talk 09:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Elephant crushing[edit]

None of the external links is active, although the reference link is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I have tagged the dead links as such. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair use image[edit]

I uploaded File:Empires of Eve book cover.png as a fair use book cover for the article Empires of Eve. A number of bots have made changes to the image resulting it being shrunk, and now the book subtitle on the image cannot be read. I would appreciate some advice on what to do. I want the image to be readable and to be within Wikipedia image rules.--R2d232h2 (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse R2d232h2. The cover looks like just plain white text on plain black. If so, it is {{PD-simple}}. —teb728 t c 10:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Teb728: I have already uploaded the image as fair use, and it has already been shrunk. There are notices on the file and my talk page. How do I use {{PD-simple}} here?--R2d232h2 (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@R2d232h2: Upload it to Commons with a slightly different filename using the {{PD-text}} tag (that's the tag they use on Commons). Then change the article to use the Commons filename. (You don't need to ask for the en-wiki copy to be deleted, for when it is unused, it will be deleted as an unused non-free file.) —teb728 t c 11:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done I've reverted to the previous higher quality version, transferred to Commons, and tagged the local file for deletion. Someone should come along soon and tidy up the remaining loose ends. GMGtalk 11:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you.--R2d232h2 (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
No problem at all R2d232h2. Thanks for helping us build a better encyclopedia! Feel free to drop back by if we can ever be of any help. GMGtalk 15:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Can Someone Help with Article That was moved to draftspace?[edit]

I've created several articles, and before I could even get to work on the latest one, it was moved to Wikipedia:Drafts or draftspace.

Between my job, my recent firing of job, family problems, et cetera., I really don't have time to work on anymore articles or Wikipedia for a while.

I feel this is a noteworthy article. Here's the location: Draft:The Black Dahlia (graphic novel) and another important link:ée) .

Again I don't think I'll be able to contribute to Wikipedia for quite a long time. I also don't have time to make to article up to review, because it lacked sources or whatever (I wasn't given any time to make it up to review, not to mention this never happened to me before.) I feel the article is noteworthy, there are sources and citations, it has an article on the French wikipedia, and other reasons.

So I ask if someone, or some people can kindly help work on this and make it up to peer review or whatever is needed to make it up to standards Draft:The Black Dahlia (graphic novel) It would be a tremendous favor and I'd be extremely thankful for help. And I thank you in advance to the people who work and help on this.

Thank you, Merry Christmas, and God bless everyone. PeaceShield5 (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Graphic novel, you say? I'll take a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wiki search[edit]

Hello. Am an artist and wanted to make myself searchable. How can I make my profile available on wikipedia search? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The KrezyStudent (talkcontribs) 17:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@The KrezyStudent: Apologies, but Wikipedia probably isn't what you're looking for. Do you meet the criteria outlined here? -A lainsane (Channel 2) 17:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, The KrezyStudent. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. If at some point we have an article about you, it will not be a profile, and it will not belong to you. It will be a summary of what people unconnected with you have chosen to publish about you, in reliably published places. It will contain little or no information which comes directly from you, and your role in editing it will be limited to making suggestions, which uninvolved editors will then decide what to do with. Wikipedia may not be used for promotion in any way. --ColinFine (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

IMAGE placement[edit]

Working on Barrio de San Lázaro, Havana, image "Torreon de San Lazaro. 1665" drops down to an incorrect section. I wamt to format it like so image is placed NEXT to subject:


Torreon de San Lazaro. 1665

The torreon de San Lazaro was built in 1665 by engineer Marcos Lucio. From this fortification on could defend the Havana from the threat of attacks by corsairs and pirates.

The tower, named for a nearby leprosarium that was located in the cove of the same name, formerly known as Juan Guillén, served as a link between the castles of La Punta and La Chorrera, while watching the horizon in search of enemy sails.

ovA_165443 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi ovA_165443. Done with {{Stack}}.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much PrimeHunter! ovA_165443 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Biography Creation[edit]

I need to create a Biography page but have never done so before. How do I get the template to edit and publish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbmproserv (talkcontribs) 18:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mbmproserv In order to get the {{paid}} template on your userpage to transclude you have to take it out of the nowiki tag. I did that for you. —teb728 t c 19:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Mbmproserv. For all information about the rather difficult process of creating an acceptable Wikipedia article, please read Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

References from sources[edit]


As I'm new to all this, I'd like to know what the policy is if you're writing an article about something you were personally involved with: in this case a band. There are no sources for any of the material that will go in the article. It's all from memory. Does this mean that I cannot write the article?

Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euruski (talkcontribs) 20:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Euruski. In order to notable by our standards, a subject must have received significant coverage in published independent reliable sources. Sorry —teb728 t c 20:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggested/best practice for "updating" a minor edit not tagged as minor[edit]

I recently made my first edit to an article - an extraordinarily minor change to add a missing period; this occurred in the Straw man page. However, I forgot to tag it as a minor edit and published it. I immediately noticed this after publishing, but it seems my only options were to undo the edit, or, as I now see in Minor edit, I could have made a dummy edit (that page suggests doing so for the reverse case, of accidentally marking a major edit as minor, which of course is a bigger concern).

What I did was: undo my edit (marking that as minor, which was perhaps a mistake?), and then resubmit the exact same edit, marked as minor.

What I would have liked to do (what seems to be the cleanest way of addressing this) would have been to either delete my own edit, or better, have the option to update/re-publish my edit with the "minor edit" box marked.

I'm familiar with revision systems like git's, but I don't have a sense of how changes to Wikipedia are overseen, and therefore I don't have a sense of how these types of metadata are used in practice, but what I'm wanting is an efficient way to generate compact, accurate, and analyzable revision information. In this particular case, how I handled the situation created three history entries because of a simple error. In the given environment, the best information I've found as an alternative would be to potentially make a dummy edit and use that edit to note that the previous edit, not marked as minor, was actually minor. That, however, still creates two history entries, and it fails to correct the original issue, which is that there's now a minor edit in Wikipedia's non-minor edit stream. That's unsatisfying to me, and it seems like it would be a relatively simple (not trivial, but not that complicated) feature change to address this.

This may seem like a minor point to make (haha), but I have two questions:

1. What *is*, in fact, the best practice for a situation like this? (Perhaps it is even "don't sweat not marking a minor edit as minor, just leave it as is", but if it's the dummy edit suggestion, that seems like a dummy process, to me, and I'm looking for something more satisfying.)

2. If I'd like to suggest a change to Wikipedia's design/feature set to address this use case, where would I do so? (I looked for where to contribute such suggestions, and I couldn't quickly find it, and have spent 45 mins+ just to get enough info so that I could ask my first question, and then ask the question... so I'm hoping that perhaps someone familiar with Wikipedia can point me in the right direction. Nothing in either Wikipedia:Questions or Wikipedia:FAQ/Index seemed to point the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schroedey (talkcontribs) 20:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Schroedey, you can't change an edit summary, or the "minor edit" flag, once your edit has been submitted. And it's no big deal. I have been forgetting to mark some of my minor edits as minor for twelve years, and no-one has ever complained.
If there were a process for changing the flag and/or the edit summary, this might also have a field for giving the reason for the change - and then someone would propose a facility to go back and change that. And we would all disappear in an infinite regress. Maproom (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Schroedey Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your questions. It's refreshing to respond to an editor who is deeply concerned at the quality of their first edits and related edit summaries. That suggests you have the makings of a great Wikipedia editor. But you needn't have fretted over this particular issue at all. Marking a significant edit as a minor one is not good, but the reverse situation is of no concern to anyone. The purpose of marking edits as 'minor' is to avoid alerting those editors who choose (via their 'Preference' settings) not to be notified of trivial edits to pages they're interested in; they only want to know about major changes. Your edit, as helpful as it was, certainly fell into the trivial category, and you really did not need to revert and re-do the edit as a minor one. You might like to read more about this topic at Help:Minor edit and Help:Edit summary. Best practice is to do nothing in this example, but for the reverse situation you could have made a subsequent 'dummy edit', not marking it as minor one, and summarising the previous edit, accidentally flagged as a minor. That'll alert everyone who cares.
To answer your second question, suggestions for improvements can be made via a tool we call Phabricator, and you can read how we do this by visiting: Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests.
Finally, what would be really, really helpful in future is if you could remember to 'sign' every talk page edit, please. It helps us know who has said what, and when they said it. To sign a post, simply type four keyboard tilde characters at the end of your post (like this: ~~~~). Does this help? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Links to related (but wrong) articles[edit]

I have both a specific and general question. I noticed that the link for the Jim Thompson novel The Transgressors doesn't link to an article about the novel but rather links to the page for Thompson the author. I also noticed this in a song by The Bangles, there was a link to a song on an album but the link took you to the album, there was no actual page for the individual song. I plan to write an article for the Thompson novel. When I do, how do I change the current redirect so that it points to the article about the book not to the article about Thompson? Also, I just wanted to double check I assume this conflicts with some policy or if not just common sense. I think it's very confusing both to users and editors to have links like that. I don't like Red Links either, I think the proper policy should be don't create links until you have an article, at least a stub, because IMO red links are confusing for new users, at least I found them confusing the first time I encountered one. But between a red link and a link that goes someplace unexpected I think a red link is far better, is this pretty much agreed upon? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Redlinks serve a purpose in that they point to the need for an article. This is meaningful unless and until redlinks are overused. Sorry I cannot answer your main question.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@MadScientistX11: See Wikipedia:Redirect#How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article and Wikipedia:Red link. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Co-Author Request: S-7000.A Real Property Tax Law in New York State[edit]

Hi, we've written a summary of the current property tax law of New York State. see We've also added many links from the New York Times that describes the history of the bill enactment into law.

We'd love if someone here could help co-author this article.

Or help with getting it published.

The law affects millions of people and to this very day people affected are not aware of it or do not understand it.

This article summarizes the key points of the law and shows it's effect over time.

We will keep the article up to date as time progresses.

Can someone give pointers on changes needed.

We submitted and waited many many weeks and received a few comments but more help would be appreciated.

This seems to be a very important topic that is simply missing from wikipedia and we'd love to help wikipedia include it.

Thanks. Ryozzo (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Ryozzo (talk)

First: who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts are intended to be used by one person only, and not to be used by companies (including law firms) or for commercial purposes. Are you anything other than an individual editor, editing without pay on your own time? General Ization Talk 04:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"We" is referring to "two poor souls" myself and an eighty year old gentleman who was involved in the making of this particular law. It is not a company or law firm Ryozzo (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

And yes we are surely editing without pay Ryozzo (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. While you may be working with another person as a team on this project, I'd suggest avoiding the constant references to yourself as "we", as this tends to raise questions around here. The singular "I" and "me" are fine. General Ization Talk 04:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Noted, I was just trying to give credit where credit was due. Ryozzo (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there anyone interested in helping with this article on Property Tax? I've updated the article to include nytimes articles that focus on the tax law creation. I'd prefer to review it here before re-submitting. Thanks for having a friendly place to review. Ryozzo (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

That yellow chicken powder[edit]

Do we have an article for that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Sort of. See this article section.
Thanks! I just added that section and was about to post here. The content is unsourced, but true! I swear. :) I'll see what I can dig up. Next time I'm at the supermarket, I will take a pic of the huge wall of zillions of chicken powder packages, every single one a Knorr lookalike. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


Tại sao tôi lại không tôi không được ghi nhận là người dùng sáng tạo và đóng góp chương trình [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muimui usu (talkcontribs) 12:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Muimui usu
Hello, Muimui usu, and welcome to Wikipedia! While efforts to improve Wikipedia are always welcome, unfortunately, your contributions are not written in English that is good enough to be useful. You appear to be more familiar with Vietnamese; did you know there is a Vietnamese Wikipedia? You may prefer to contribute there instead. In any case, welcome to the project, and thank you for your efforts! -- GMGtalk 13:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Xin chào Welcomeen-vi, và chào mừng bạn đến với Wikipedia! Trong khi những nỗ lực để cải thiện Wikipedia luôn được chào đón, thật tiếc là đóng góp của bạn không được viết bằng tiếng Anh đủ tốt để có thể giúp ích cho người đọc. Bạn có vẻ quen thuộc hơn với tiếng Việt; bạn có biết là cũng có Wikipedia phiên bản ngôn ngữ tiếng Việt không? Có lẽ bạn sẽ cảm thấy thích đóng góp vào đó hơn là Wikipedia tiếng Anh này. Dù thế nào đi nữa, chào mừng bạn đến với dự án, và cảm ơn những nỗ lực của bạn! -- GMGtalk 13:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia[edit]

"This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." That is the reason why my article was denied. However, multiple other similar articles have been approved for years. (My article is about an Continuing Anglican church.) The thing is, the nature of what I am writing about doesn't get much third-party citation: who writes about independent churches??

Here's my link as proof: Draft:Episcopal_Catholic_Church

Now look at these other churches and see if this feels like discrimination to you: Continuing_Anglican_movement#Other_Anglican_churches

I am at my wit's end and need help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revparker (talkcontribs) 12:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Revparker: Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Please note that just because other stuff exists, your "stuff" is not necessarily notable enough for inclusion. After all, every subject is different. So instead of concentrating on the perceived "unfairness" of other churches getting articles when your's doesn't, you should instead endeavor to find coverage in independent reliable sources and add them to the draft. Regards SoWhy 13:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
As a specific example, check out this article: Traditional_Anglican_Church_of_America
Now how does that article get approved with absolutely NO references whatsoever and my page gets rejected?
Should I re-submit as a stub? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revparker (talkcontribs) 13:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Can I re-publish my article "draft: Episcopal Catholic Church" as a stub similar to
There are no "independent reliable sources" yet and while fairness may be a moral term, discrimination is a legal one. I believe my article is being discriminated against as religious persecution, which is of course against the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revparker (talkcontribs) 13:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
If there are no independent reliable sources, then the subject does not warrant a Wikipedia article. That is a very clear policy of Wikipedia. It has nothing whatever to do with religious discrimination. Maproom (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
You are correct, I was NOT threatening legal action against Wikipedia, as everyone can likely tell I am just extraordinarily frustrated with Wikipedia right now. How is a PhD-level scholar such as myself unable to get one article published with Wikipedia? It's been simply maddening! Ah, I just want to scream "Bah Humbug" but instead I wish you and the Wikipedia family a Merry Christmas. I guess, whether I like it or not, Wikipedia has become a part of the family now so thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revparker (talkcontribs) 13:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with your writing ability or level of education, and everything to do with the notability of the subject that you picked. shoy (reactions) 13:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Revparker, Nobel-prize winners have had similar frustrations, so you're in good company. WP is a special place, and can take time to understand. Merry Christmas to you too! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The problem for we (PhD) editors is that we know something to be true, but unless other people have published about it, not Wikipedia suitable. Worse in medicine/health arena, because in vitro, animal and human clinical trial references are not accepted, only published review articles. MD/PhD editors get VERY cranky when their own published research is deemed insufficient. David notMD (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
By the way, pointing out other articles as models sometimes leads to those being nominated for deletion, as, now, Traditional Anglican. It has been around for years, but as you noted, has no references. David notMD (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I am entirely new to Wikipedia- where do I start?[edit]

I've only ever corrected spelling mistakes on anonymous mode before, but I decided to make an account and really delve into the world of wikipedianism. It all seems very overwhelming though! Where do I start? BetweenCupsOfTea (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello BetweenCupsOfTea and welcome to the Teahouse; we're happy you would like to help out. A great place to learn information about Wikipedia and how you can help is the Wikipedia Adventure. The community portal has a list of pages that need improvement, which is often a good place to start for newer editors. If you have any more specific questions, let us know. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

New article[edit]

When would i able to start my own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odishawiki (talkcontribs) 16:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Odishawiki: You can start now by reading WP:YFA to learn how to create an article, and then use the wizard there to create a draft article for review. It is not easy to create a new article, particularly if you are new. The usual advice is to start by working on improving existing articles first to gain experience. RudolfRed (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for friendly help.[edit]

Is there anyone interested in helping with this article on Property Tax? I've updated the article to include nytimes articles that focus on the tax law creation. I'd prefer to review it here before re-submitting. Thanks for having a friendly place to review. See Ryozzo (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Ryozzo I took a quick look at your article draft and made some changes. The tax table info is excessive and probably why the article was not approved, so I deleted it. I also made some formatting changes and moved the history to the top, as is the custom here. I know almost nothing about tax code, but when I have more time I'll do a deeper dive. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Biographies of living people[edit]

I am interested in creating an article about a living person. My question is: are there any legal regulations to be aware of before doing this? Will I be violating that person's privacy if I do this without written consent? Is there a limit to what can be included on the article? - Puzzledvegetable (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP should answer most of your questions. And the limits on what you can write about are pretty much the same as for other articles. You can only paraphrase what reliable sources say. Nothing else. John from Idegon (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Question: Third Wheel[edit]

I was recently asked by a young person where the term “third wheel” came from, as a term for an extra person or companion to a couple. While I have known the source(s) for near a half-century, we found (an exercise in referencing) nothing close to a historical foundation for the terms of either a third, or fifth, wheel.

The “Wikis” say: the third is inspired by the fifth, or it is a part on a truck, or movie, but FAIL to say WHERE IT CAME FROM.

I am a basic computer user, not a programmer (nor is the child) would someone else be willing to add this to Wikis?

The derivation of the “third, or fifth wheel” as an idiom in language referring to a person: From a wheeled vehicle: the spare tire. It is handy to have along in the case of an emergency, but otherwise a cumbersome and awkward accoutrement. From marine activities: in the pilot or wheelhouse of a boat or ship. One wheel is needed. Two wheels connected and mounted one to each side for visibility during docking or other movements of the boat can be indispensable. A “third wheel” in the wheelhouse is superfluous, or lacks purpose.

Hence a "third, or fifth, wheel" in relationships is an extra person in a possibly uncomfortable, and feeling in an unneeded or extra, position.

Thanks for adding this in. It's beyond my tech, or interest to find out how, to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjwasright (talkcontribs) 18:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Tjwasright. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for wanting to help us contribute to the encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, one of the basic principles of Wikipedia is that every piece of information in it should be found in a reliably published source. (Anybody can edit Wikipedia - by design - so if information is not cited to a source, then somebody could come along and change it, and the reader would have no way of knowing which version was correct). So we cannot accept any information that you "just know" (or that I "just know"). If you can find a reliable published source that explains that "third wheel" comes from a wheelhouse on a ship, that could possibly be added to an article, but not otherwise. Since you say you have been unable to find a source, this does not seem likely. You may be right, but one of the "mavens" at Random House disagreed with you. In any case, Wikipedia won't say it unless somebody has already done so in a reliably published source.
There is another possible problem, which is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It does not normally have articles about words or phrases, but about the things the words refer to. Only if there has been a significant amount published about the specific phrase "third wheel" could I imagine a Wikipedia article being accepted on the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

How do I know if I'm now autoconfirmed?[edit]

Hi, I read that once my account is four days old and I have made 10 edits my page should be autoconfirmed, thereby allowing me to move pages. My account has now been active for five days and I've made more than 10 edits, but I can't seem to move pages. Can anyone tell me how I could tell if I've been autoconfirmed and why might I not have been? Tolstoy22 (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This shows that you are autoconfirmed. What page are you trying to move? Dbfirs 21:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Rejection of draft article because the article name already exists[edit]

I mistakenly created an article Draft: Alfa Anderson not realizing that the redirected article Alfa Anderson already exists. I would like to merge Draft: Alfa Anderson into the original article, but the draft article has been erased and a redirect placed there also. Can you please give me advice as to how I can go about recovering the information in Draft: Alfa Anderson and merging it into Alfa Anderson? I would also like to remove all the redirects. Thank you for your help. Jupiter3000 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jupiter3000: It's been redirected, not deleted. You need to establish that Anderson is notable outside of the band. You can do this by following the instructions present at User:Ian.thomson/Howto, taking special care to use sources that are specifically and primarily about Anderson but not the band. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

New article[edit]

I have wrote an article on my sandbox, intending it to go on Psycho Series until I realised it is create protected. It is the only online series of its kind and has over 1 billion views; I think that is easily both A7 qualified and WP:NOTABLE. I think the reason it was create protected was because people probably made very poor articles. How do I get this article created? IWI (chat) 23:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi IWI. If you create a draft article which is accepted, the reviewer can move it to the protected title. —teb728 t c 00:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
teb728, ImprovedWikiImprovment has created a draft, in their sandbox, and has submitted it for review. If the reviewing editor accepts it, they will sort out moving it to the right place. However, ImprovedWikiImprovment, although your current draft has 56 references, as far as I can see only one, or possibly two, of them are independent reliable sources - and they are both about one single incident, not the channel in general. (The two are Variety, and possibly Tubefilter, but see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 126#Blogs count towards notability?). Unless you find some more independent reliable sources that cover the channel at more length, I don't think it will establish notability. --ColinFine (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@ColinFine: Actually I hadn't submitted it until teb728 instructed me to do so. The article is about the online series, which inspried a Streamy Award winning documentary. It's very much a cult series, which may explain my difficulty finding sources. Also the source numbers 2 and 3 are also independent from the creator (which aren't reliable in of themselves but prove the preceding point). IWI (chat) 00:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
There is also source number 6. IWI (chat) 00:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
IWI: I said that if you create an article which is accepted protection would not be a problem; I didn't say anything about submitting the current content of your sandbox. You mentioned WP:NOTABLE; so I assumed you knew we were looking for significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. —teb728 t c 01:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Teb728: I do but these drafts usually take weeks to be reviewed, so I put it forward now. I’m not sure if many exist, due to the nature of the series. IWI (chat) 01:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I now understand your comment was effectively hypothetical. IWI (chat) 01:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia store[edit]

A long time ago I stumbled across a page that sold Wikipedia gear. I'm hoping to find it again to get my daughter a backpack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Blacketer (talkcontribs) 03:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, David! That would be, I believe. Writ Keeper  03:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Continued donation requests[edit]

I have contributed financially to Wikipedia but I am still being continually interrupted by Wikipedia to donate. It’s a pain in the neck and frustrates me greatly to the point where I’m contemplating severely limiting my use of the platform, at the very least. Stop it! Please... I can pay no more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I sympathise with posters like 103. As a registered and experienced editor, I've been able to figure out how to switch off the nagging appeals; and I find it unreasonable that new users receive so many of them. I've noticed that complaints like the above have become much more frequent in the last month or two. No-one here at Wikipedia is responsible for the appeals, it's the Wikimedia Foundation that inflicts them on us. Can anyone advise on where complaints can be effectively directed? Maproom (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Maproom: It usually seems to be Whatamidoing (WMF) who acts as the Wikimedia Foundation's ambassador to English Wikipedia; you could try asking her who's responsible. As someone who reads Wikipedia a lot while logged out, I can testify that the adverts this year are far more intrusive and obnoxious than they've ever been before. ‑ Iridescent 07:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Help related to understanding Conflict of Interest on Wikipedia[edit]

Hello. As my userpage says, I have made over 3000 edits. But I have never really thought too much about COI, though every now and then I am careful. I just make sure now that I use good sources and edit as per guidelines. But I think now I need to consider COI properly because I want to stay on Wikipedia for a long time and not get into trouble later on. I would request someone to help me navigate Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. When is something a conflict of interest?

  • What should I write on my userpage to tell people if there is a COI?
  • If I had a COI in the past, but now no longer have one, then?
  • If I have studied with someone in the same University, but I don't know that person, and I create a Wikipedia page for that person, is that a conflict of interest?
  • If I have worked volunteered in a volunteer organization and created the Wikipedia page for that organization on my own initiative, is that a conflict of interest?
  • Can a person have a COI and still be able to create a good neutral article? Can they edit those articles in the first place? (Like doctors editing medical articles related to drugs, that isn't COI generally? unless?)
  • What's the difference between being an expert and having a COI?... so many questions!! (I can write a Signpost article of this :D :D)

I want to make it clear that I have never done paid editing here. But since I want to continue editing Wikipedia (till I die :D :D) without any messy politics later on, I want to clear all this up now and make sure I stop making any mistakes which I may currently be making. Thank you for any answers in advance. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DiplomatTesterMan. In a certain sense, every Wikipedia editor has a mild conflict of interest, because we edit the articles and topics that interest us personally in some way, as opposed to editing articles spit out by a random article generator. We should all be constantly examining our edits to see if our enthusiasms are overwhelming our neutrality. When I first started editing here nearly ten years ago, I worked on several biographies of mountaineers associated with the Sierra Club, and I have been a member of that club for over 40 years. But I am not an employee or an official of that club, and wrote those historical articles on my own initiative, without any coordination or communication with the club leadership. In other words, I was motivated primarily by a desire to improve the encyclopedia, and not by a desire to promote the Sierra Club. That is the metric for deciding whether or not a conflict of interest is counterproductive and unmanageable.
If you have even a mild conflict of interest, disclose it, and defer to experienced, uninvolved editors who evaluate your work in good faith. Open disclosure of potential COI is the basis for good practice in this area. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)