Finnusertop (talk | contribs) |
Government Man (talk | contribs) →how do I become an admin: new section |
||
Line 647: | Line 647: | ||
Hi, I wrote an article about a rare medical condition my brother has, but it got flagged for speedy deletion. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.30.220.125|70.30.220.125]] ([[User talk:70.30.220.125#top|talk]]) 18:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Hi, I wrote an article about a rare medical condition my brother has, but it got flagged for speedy deletion. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.30.220.125|70.30.220.125]] ([[User talk:70.30.220.125#top|talk]]) 18:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are not logged in right now, so we are unable to see what articles you have created. Please tell us either your username or the name of the article so that we can look into it. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em">– [[User:Finnusertop|Finnusertop]]</span> ([[User talk:Finnusertop|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Finnusertop|contribs]]) 18:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC) |
:Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are not logged in right now, so we are unable to see what articles you have created. Please tell us either your username or the name of the article so that we can look into it. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em">– [[User:Finnusertop|Finnusertop]]</span> ([[User talk:Finnusertop|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Finnusertop|contribs]]) 18:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
== how do I become an admin == |
|||
I understand that it seems like Wikipedia is understaffed in the admin section because it took them a month to respond to me to get an account I would like to stress how thankful, lucky and happy I am to be a user. and I would like to help speed up that process I don't want to use it improperly or abuse it I just want to help administrate more great and peaceful editors to Wikipedia or block and disrupt vandalism. so now that I have explained anything I might want to do I would like to ask a few Questions are there any requirements for admin privileges? e.g. seniority of a year and a certain number of edits or articles published or something else. also is restricted admin privileges a thing like for simply banning and stopping accounts that proliferate vandalism? furthermore, I would like to stress my respect for anyone who responds to this and will completely understand whatever is said I am simply curious about this process and hope that I can help administrate help to others. |
Revision as of 18:39, 16 March 2018
Revising the name of a page
Hello I am new to Wikipedia and recently saw that there is a page about one of my ancestors. The name of the page is not completely accurate and missing his title. I would just like to amend this so that it reads correctly by just adding his title so the name would be exactly the same as it is now - just with a Sir in front of the name ( he was knighted) . Please let me know how to do this as I don’t want to change anything but want to add Sir. I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.250.203.63 (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not use such honorific titles, except in rare cases such as royalty. The titles of biographic articles should be simply the subject's name, without such embellishments. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Not even royalty! – Joe (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure about this, but from looking at Christopher Lees article the honorific title should be added as a parameter inside the persons infobox. NinuKinuski (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Not even royalty! – Joe (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Collapse section formatting
Hi, I have an article with an excessive bibliography listing. I would like to have an expand/collapse format so that the individual issues are collapsed by default. Is this easy to do?
Thanks
Epididymus (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Epididymus. That's probably not a good idea. MOS:COLLAPSE recommends against using collapse templates in articles and specifically prohibits content being hidden by default. If the length of the bibliography (or any other list) is a problem, it's best tackled by cutting it down to a reasonable size or forking it to a new article, e.g. bibliography of X.
- But for reference, you can easily collapse content with the {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} templates. – Joe (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The real problem is that it's for a comic writer and so it has individual issues listed in a collection, which makes it super long. Do you think it'd be better to make it separate or just axe the individual titles for each title? Epididymus (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Epididymus: I couldn't say really, it's not my area. I notice that Stan Lee has a cut-down bibliography, whilst Alan Moore has it spun out to Alan Moore bibliography. Maybe look at other articles on similar writers and see what they do. You could also ask WikiProject Comics what they think. – Joe (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Why is my article keep getting deleted
Im after creating Matchbook.com Wiki in my spare time. Im not sure why this is getting flagged for speedy deletion. All information seems to relevant to the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddrumm1 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- While I cannot view the article, it has apparently been deleted as it violates our policy regarding promotional content, and is unambiguously an advertisement. All content on Wikipedia must be neutral and supported by reliable sources, and your draft was deemed by El Cid, a highly-accomplished administrator, to not meet these criteria. Moreover, editors who have a conflict of interest for an article which they are editing should refrain from doing so. Not sure if this applies to you, but it is worth parsing regardless... Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC).
- As mentioned, Ddrumm1, the article was deleted as being promotional, under WP:CSD#G11. An earlier version was deleted after an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matchbook.com as not being notable. Additional independent sources that discuss the subject in detail, and a more neutral tone, would be needed for any later version to survive. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey Guys, I have had a better read through the Wikipedia Guideline and think I know where I went wrong. Apologies and thanks for the help. Hope this can be rectified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddrumm1 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Advice on Page that I am working on
Hi,
I originally created a rather large article and submitted it for review. It was denied under the reasoning for notability. It can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:United_States_Bridge_Championships
Since then, I made the decision that I actually wanted to split this one article into multiple because I felt that it was overwhelming for the reader and it would only get longer in length. Also the idea transpired from the fact that the tournaments that each of these categories would qualify for each have their own wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Bowl and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Cup for example.
I created a draft for the first section of the original article found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:United_States_Bridge_Championships_-_Open where I also fixed the issue of notability because I found multiple New York Times articles about the events over the years. Do you have any other ideas on how to fix the page and make sure that it passes its review when it comes up?
I was sent here by Robert who originally rejected my first article to seek advice on how to improve the new page. He also said that the splitting up of the article would make the review more complicated. Why is that?
Thanks for your time, Hakan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htberk (talk • contribs) 01:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- The rejection was not for lack of notability. Rather, it was that 107 of the 108 refs were from worldbridge.org or other bridge organizations. Your draft of a shorter option - just the Open Championships, still has far too many worldbridge citations. The few other types - NYTimes bridge columns back when the paper still had a bridge column - are annoying, as in addition to a bit about what was happening at the Open, each describes the play of a bridge hand, for which the accompanying diagram is absent. It may be impossible to find independent references for all the information you want to include. To be honest, I am appalled that scores upon scores of bridge plays are deemed notable enough to warrant their own articles - but then, I'm not a bridge player. David notMD (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Htberk: you should be able to get good advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridge, by inquiring at its talk page. Maproom (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Htberk, I am a bridge player (not quite life master), and i am not
appalled that scores upon scores of bridge plays are deemed notable enough to warrant their own articles
, but I do think that David notMD has a point. However I would disagree that this is not an issue of notability -- the lack of independent source references is exactly an indication that notability has not yet been established. - I would advise creating a shorter draft explaining what the USBCs are and their history (when they were instituted, etc.) but without the many detailed results. Then once this is reviewed and established as an article, more detailed articles on the specific events with lists of winners can be created using Summary style. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Htberk, I am a bridge player (not quite life master), and i am not
Notability and (Promotional) Language Issues
Hello everyone, a submission of mine, currently available at draft:Shine.com has been declined. Please help with pointing out the mistakes, specific or general, and how to improve upon them with respect to modifications, additions, and removing content. Also, citations were mainly from the third party sources, there still may be notability issues, please help with that. I look forward to your helping hands. I would like to declare that the article is an assignment from my employer.Amangoinplaces (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Amangoinplaces: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have been asked by your employer to write an article, you need to review the conflict of interest policy located at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID before you edit further; reviewing the latter policy is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use.
- You and your employer seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a place to promote a business or even merely tell the world about a business. Wikipedia has no interest in what a business wishes to say about itself or how it wants to be portrayed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia is only interested in what third parties write about article subjects such as a business. Primary sources like press releases, interviews with company staff, routine business announcements, and brief mentions are not acceptable sources for establishing notability. Most of your sources seem to be routine announcements and or press releases. The notability guidelines for businesses are listed at WP:ORG, and you should review those as well.
- As you work for the business, it will be difficult(though not impossible) for you to write in the neutral point of view Wikipedia requires. In order for you to be successful in writing about your employer, you would need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on what third party, independent reliable sources state about it. As I stated, that does not include primary sources. If your business has not been sufficiently written about in independent sources, it will not be possible for their to be an article about it here at this time. Not every business merits an article here.
- If you have reviewed the notability guidelines and truly feel that your business does merit an article, you can attempt again to rewrite the draft and resubmit it. Again, though, if you cannot find proper sources, you should wait for your business to become sufficiently notable(as Wikipedia defines it) and allow others who notice it to write about it. If you just want to tell the world about your business, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @331dot: Hello, thank you for the tips. I have already declared the conflict of interest as required. As of the citations provided, except for one, I have personally made sure they are all independent third party articles, some from competing news publishers (as we are news publishers as well). I just wanted to know if they are sufficient to establish notability or shall I research more. Also, if you would please help in identifying the points where language was promotional and/or not appropriate. I am already working on a new draft and any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Amangoinplaces (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Amangoinplaces: From what I can tell, most of the issues are likely related to the sources. They mostly seem to be press releases or routine business announcements(like the merger of the business, or the creation of one of its platforms). If you review WP:ORG you will see that such sources are specifically called out as not appropriate for establishing notability as Wikipedia defines it. To do so, this business needs to have been written about with in depth coverage by third parties, that does not merely discuss a routine business transaction, press release, or consist of an interview with company staff. I would again stress that you need to forget everything you know about the company and only write based on the independent, in depth coverage given by third parties that have chosen to write about your business.
- I suspect that the reviewer who rejected the draft as an advertisement(you can ask them directly to be certain) did not mean "advertisement" in the sense of "Buy X service from Shine.com today!!!!", but in the sense of the piece being something that you might read on a business directory site or social media. As I indicated, Wikipedia articles must do more. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @331dot: Alright, will see what I can do. I tried to be comprehensive, to provide as much information as I could find. Will providing just the basic information with proper sources (which will greatly reduce the content as well) do the trick. I understand now that it is required to be factual and simple which I will try my best to provide. Also, is there a possibility to address the issue of sources 'looking' like paid/PR content and getting them verified as independent since these are all the independent and reliable sources I could find. Thanks. Amangoinplaces (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Amangoinplaces: The issue is not necessarily the sources themselves, but what they are stating. They mostly if not totally seem to consist of routine business announcements; the merger of the business, the business raising funding, launching a new marketplace, merely telling of things your company has done, etc. All of these things do not establish notability. The pages WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND(both subsets of WP:ORG, the guidelines as a whole) discuss this better than I probably can. In all honesty, I'm not certain your business merits an article at this time, especially if these sources are the only ones you have found. Again, not every business merits a page here; you may wish to inform your employer of this and show them this discussion, as well as the notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @331dot: Alright, will see what I can do. I tried to be comprehensive, to provide as much information as I could find. Will providing just the basic information with proper sources (which will greatly reduce the content as well) do the trick. I understand now that it is required to be factual and simple which I will try my best to provide. Also, is there a possibility to address the issue of sources 'looking' like paid/PR content and getting them verified as independent since these are all the independent and reliable sources I could find. Thanks. Amangoinplaces (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @331dot: That is a little disappointing but no problem. I will certainly inform about the same. Thank you very much for your time and efforts. Hope to see you again sometime. Amangoinplaces (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
When will Wikipedia get a facelift?
The mobile site looks sexy. The regular web version looks like a neglected geocities cite from the Clinton administration. This hurts users as they will be less likely to read and interact with the platform. Is there a facelift on its way? And if so, when will that be rolled out :) ? Thank you, Amin (Talk) 06:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Amin: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know if you are referring to the Main Page specifically, but I know that there is general agreement that it should be updated, but not agreement on what it should be updated to, despite many attempts at reaching agreement. Incremental improvements are made occasionally, but for a wholesale redesign you would need to find a way to reach consensus among hundreds of thousands of editors from around the world all of whom have different ideas and opinions. I also think(though I don't have statistics on it) that the percentage of readers on phones is increasing more than on computers(which editors tend to use more). 331dot (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Amin: I would also add that there are still many parts of the world with poor internet access, and the site could not be so glitzy that it would impede access to users in those areas(i.e. needing a lot of bandwidth). 331dot (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- I quite like that it looks like "a neglected Geocities site from the Clinton administration" myself (well, maybe not the neglected part). ;-). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Well that's a bit of an exaggeration on Amin's part. The current vector skin was introduced in 2009, in the Obama years. This is what Wikipedia used to look like. And since then small additions like the VisualEditor, notifications, the new diff and edit conflict interfaces have kept it moving forward. Personally I don't think it looks out of date at all, but maybe I've just got used to it.
- Looking back now, it's remarkable that the introduction of Vector was so smooth. These days, the WMF seem to struggle to push even minor changes, both in terms of their internal capabilities, and the fact that their relationship with the community has broken down to the point where everything they do is vociferously opposed as a matter of course. I doubt they would be prepared to, or capable of, attempting a major redesign like that again. I like the mobile version too, but I gather it is rather unpopular with the majority of editors. – Joe (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- De gustibus and all that...
- Users can reskin the site for themselves with browser add-ins like Wikiwand. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- And there are of course some easy skin options for registered users at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Timeless was added recently. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- The introduction was not that smooth either, trust me. It's just that most people were too busy writing articles and fighting about the content back then, to care about something like this. But there were pretty big discussions about it and several shifts in the launch approach. It was also one of the first software developments that the foundation ever did (at least visible to users). Ppl were in general sort of happy that we finally had staff to take care of stuff no one else wanted to work on, so that too made it less controversial I think. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Eh, for my money, it pisses me off when websites I use a lot just scramble everything up because of the fetish our culture has for New! Improved! I just dropped the site that's been my home page for my web browsers for over a decade because it just kept getting busier and busier with NooStuf to capture the attention of the easily-bored. Wikipedia being the 5th most trafficked site on the Internet, I'm thinking we don't have to do handsprings to get the world to notice us. Ravenswing 18:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you all for the replies. I am surprised that some here are defending the current look of the web interface. You guys must like the mobile site right? At the very least, the web interface could easily look as good as the mobile site. It could even look as good as Medium.com, without compromising functionality. We should not romanticize bad design "because this is an encyclopedia". Even Britannica looks better, and no one consumes their content. Good design is never merely about 'looking good'. Good design is always practical, saving its users time and allowing them to be lazy. On a car dashboard, for example, the buttons that you use most often are designed to be larger and located within reach, than the buttons you only use rarely. On Wikipedia, doing simple tasks often requires users to read, learn, code, click on tiny text-links, or even install and enable obscure add-ons. All this noise makes our heads spin. It's hard to measure the stress that new contributors go trough, while they're trying to make themselves familiar with this platform. There is no valid excuse to leave it like this. Wikipedia's network effects are strong enought to be able to get away with it, but we should still strive to do better. Wikipedia needs a Mark Zuckerberg-like leader who's comfortable rolling out tiny changes every few days, to see what sticks and what doesn't. Alright, that's my rant. Thank you again for taking the time to respond. From the replies, I conclude that the answer to my question is "Wikipedia will not get a facelift in the foreseeable future" #Sad Amin (Talk) 18:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Improving and expanding article Clara Martinez Alberola
Hello everyone! I am new to Wikipedia, and recently created article Clara Martinez Alberola since she has recently been appointed Head of Staff at the European Comission, which is an important role. Only, the article is short at this time, and I am not sure how it could be improved. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi DeeM28 thanks for creating a nice new article. As you said, she is newly notable so there isn't very much reliable information available about her yet. We simply wait for more news about her to be published then we can expand the article. What you can look for now is more information about her earlier career, education, family background, etc. The infobox mentions the University of Valencia, but there is no detail about it in the article text. I have done a little edit to change "currently" to a specific date and a few other minor fixes and tweaks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Unambiguous advertising
Hey all,
I work for Everex as Brand and Communications Manager here and I tried creating a wikipage for Everex which was speedily deleted because I never attached the references.
The second time around, I tried adding with references with only small details about the company from a neutral perspective with references. I do not know where I went wrong and it would be awesome if any one of you can guide me through the process! Thanks a lot!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everex.io
Pdpiam (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)PradeepPdpiam (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Pdpiam: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you do need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID before you do anything else; reading the latter policy is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use for paid editors.
- I cannot see your second attempt(though an administrator can) but I can say that you seem to have a very common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a place to promote a business or even merely tell the world about a business. Wikipedia has no interest in what a business wishes to say about itself or how it wants to be portrayed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia is only interested in what third parties write about article subjects such as a business. Primary sources like press releases, interviews with company staff, routine business announcements, and brief mentions are not acceptable sources for establishing notability. The notability guidelines for businesses are listed at WP:ORG, and you should review those as well.
- As you work for the business, it will be difficult(though not impossible) for you to write in the neutral point of view Wikipedia requires. In order for you to be successful in writing about your employer, you would need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on what third party, independent reliable sources state about it. As I stated, that does not include primary sources. If your business has not been sufficiently written about in independent sources, it will not be possible for their to be an article about it here at this time. Not every business merits an article here.
- If you have reviewed the notability guidelines and truly feel that your business does merit an article, you should not directly create the page yourself, instead submitting a draft for review through Articles for Creation, where it can be reviewed by an independent editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. Again, though, if you cannot find proper sources, you should wait for your business to become sufficiently notable(as Wikipedia defines it) and allow others who notice it to write about it. If you just want to tell the world about your business, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Published Article
I have recently published the article Darkovibes and would like to humbly request that one of the experienced Wikipedia editors take a look at it and help make it much better. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlikotoSam (talk • contribs) 11:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello AlikotoSam, and welcome to the Teahouse. Some additional source citations would be helpful, particularly for the "Early life" section. I have done some minor copyediting. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- DESiegel, I have removed the passage in the "Early life" section you tagged as needing citations. Contentious material about living people needs to be removed immediately without any discussion (and material contested with a citation needed tag is, by definition, contentious). AlikotoSam, you can see what I removed here. Restore it only if you can find sources that support the content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Finnusertop I must strongly disagree that
material contested with a citation needed tag is, by definition, contentious
, and had I thought that any experienced editor would consider the content in question to be contentious, I would not have used a cn tag. I will probably restore much of the content, as I do not think it is the kind of thing that WP:BLP is aimed at and mandates the immediate removal of. Indeed if your reasoning is correct, Finnusertop, one should never use a cn tag on a BLP, as a cn tag is in effect saying "this content should be cited, but it is fine for it to remain while a citation is sought". The contnet in question is precisely the sort of non-controversial content often sourced to the subject;'s own web site or other self-published source which would not be sufficient for truly controversial content. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Finnusertop I must strongly disagree that
- DESiegel, I have removed the passage in the "Early life" section you tagged as needing citations. Contentious material about living people needs to be removed immediately without any discussion (and material contested with a citation needed tag is, by definition, contentious). AlikotoSam, you can see what I removed here. Restore it only if you can find sources that support the content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I like to do minor edits like spelling from a different language or sorts but it gets deleted due to violation
I like to do minor edits like spelling from a different language or sorts to make it more appropriate but it gets deleted due to violation - like names or the actual spelling or pronunciation in that language because the English version is quite lacking in the proper term or usage. And hope the website will be more open towards new users like me since in my point of view, it is complex process to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heshbi (talk • contribs)
- Hello, Heshbi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits were reverted on the basis of WP:NOINDICSCRIPT, a series of multiple discussions that state that Indic script should not be added into ledes of articles. It states that
[o]ne reason why Indian scripts are avoided is because often there are too many different languages with their own native script, which can be original names for a topic. Additionally, there are too often problems with verifiability of the accuracy of the non-English spelling. A third reason is frequent disagreements over which native scripts to include; this led to a resolution to avoid all of them.
JTP (talk • contribs) 13:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Tables - Sizing Guidelines?
In regards: Dallas_Fuel#Most_Appearances
Hi, is there any guidelines of when it’s appropriate to reduce the size of a table via making the text smaller? As in when a table is too large/stretched for an article? I think I read about it before, but I can’t remember where. And as I’ve had edits previously reversed for making a table text size smaller, I wanted to double check.
Cheerio Wiki nV (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Wiki nV: You definitely shouldn't reduce the size of the text, that is obstructive for people who have trouble reading small text, we rarely go below the standard size, especially for content. There are some guidelines on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists and on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists. Also, we are an encyclopedia and not a directory or a collection of indiscriminate data. Larger tables are also very hard to use in the app, mobile website and in things like Apple's dictionary app, so another reason to avoid large tables. But of course a lot is up to case-by-case judgement. We have some terrible examples out in the wild though. Building lists is easy and writing prose is harder, so lists tend to balloon once started. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say that for me personally, all the information beyond the 4th column is pretty useless, as I don't even understand what the headers mean. Writing some prose on the developments of the season seems much more appropriate to me. Also, you shouldn't use color to indicate something, as not everyone can perceive color (or bold for that matter). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @TheDJ: That was my worry as I exclusively use my PC, I don't how it appears on smaller screens. However, I've seen many similar tables for other sport teams so it's confusing. Seeing as making the text smaller isn't suggested, would collapsing the table as default be okay? In the sense it doesn't solve readability issues for smaller screens, but at least it shouldn't interfere with the rest of the article in terms of stretching the page?
- In regards the writing prose, I had planned to eventually write about the season history, I just considered this table a separate matter? As in it doesn't seem logically to write about player appearances in detail, so it would be omitted in any written prose. It's literally just numerical statistics about the team.
- The other columns are just a breakdown of where the total appearances from, see: example of a football equivalent. I do see how the headers are Overwatch esports jargon looking at your comment, so I'll add more tooltips for the headers to hopefully make it clearer.
- Color/bold point understood, will correct.
- Also, thanks for the quick reply. Wiki nV (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Photographs
Hi I recently wrote my first article for Wikipedia, on Amal Azzudin. I contacted her and asked for a photograph that I could add to the page, which she sent me. However, when I try to upload it I get an automated message about copyright, rejecting the photo. How do I go about uploading it? Thanks for your help. Sally — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally Wainwright (talk • contribs) 15:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Sally Wainwright: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In most cases, the person in a photo does not actually own the copyright to the photo; it is usually the photographer. There is some guidance in this area at WP:UPIMAGE. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @331dot: I can ask her about this - but once we have established who took the pic and have their agreement to publish, how do I go about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally Wainwright (talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Also, is editing the question the correct way to reply to someone? Sally Wainwright (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Sally Wainwright: yes, editing the question is the correct way to reply. (You should also indent your replies, as I have done for you, but that's no big deal.)
- You will need the copyright holder (photographer or else) to go through the steps at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted material. Make sure that they understand that the photograph, once uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, can be reused by anyone, anywhere, for (almost) any purpose and free of charge, not just on Wikipedia. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Help with citing my article
I've been working on getting the article "Dramatic Publishing Company" submitted for months and it keeps getting denied saying the sources aren't credible enough. I've searched similar companies to Dramatic Publishing such as, Dramatis Play Service, Playscripts Inc., and Pioneer Drama. All of these companies have had their pages approved with similar or less content than what I've provided. Can you please explain to me and help me understand why their pages are acceptable and mine is not? And what do I need to change to get it accepted? Am I just adding it to the wrong section of Wikipedia? Do different sections even exist? Thank you for your help.Corcoran42 (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Corcoran42: Other companies have an article, so should I is not a reason to approve an article. Writing for Wikipedia is hard, I always advice people to start making small contributions to other articles first, and wouldn't advice anyone to write an article in their first half year of being a Wikipedian (making multiple edits per week). You have made 4 edits to one article in 3 months. I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to successfully publish their first article that way unfortunately. Specifically for this article, you have not demonstrated why the company matters.. There are thousands and thousands of publishing houses and only VERY few will ever have an article on Wikipedia. You basically will need to demonstrate that this company has had a lasting, transformative imprint on society, and that multiple people other than you have concluded this (usually through national news publications). This is a HIGH bar, because we are not a directory listing for companies. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Corcoran42:, let me be a little more specific. You've supplied three references to the article. You're required, by the appropriate guidelines (which I'm sure you know at this point, because the links to them were supplied both times the draft was declined), to supply multiple references from reliable sources which provide the subject with "significant coverage." The first reference, to the Chicago Tribune, isn't about Dramatic Publishing, but gives enough information that I'd give that one a pass. The second is an obituary of the publisher and only mentions it in passing. The third is a press release, which the appropriate guideline explicitly rejects as a qualifying reference. More's needed ... and from the other companies you mentioned too (only two of which have articles). Thank you for doing the service of pointing them out, because they likewise have inadequate sourcing and have been nominated for deletion. Ravenswing 18:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedbackCorcoran42 (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
New Wiki entry- have I done it correctly
Hello Everyone,
I tried to publish an article about Zeben Jameson last year and it was deleted soon after. To be frank as I'm new to this I didn't really know what I was doing. Apparently I added too many citations. I thought they were necessary as a way to back up the connections he has to high profile people, bands etc. When I contacted Wiki HQ I was advised that the citations were why my post had been deleted. I have now redone the entry and I really wanted some feedback on whether it is now OK or whether I need to change anything.
Any advice gratefully received.
Thanks so much, Xanthe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanthe Milton (talk • contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Xanthe Milton: No, "too many citations" are rarely the problem. Now, useless citations making it hard to find the good ones can be a problem. Examples of useless citations are Youtube and Discogs. Seriously, don't bother linking to those ever.
- My usual advice for writing articles:
- 1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources about the subject you can find.
- 2) Select the sources that are not affiliated with or dependent on the subject, but are still specifically about the subject. So, don't bother with sources made by the subject and don't bother with a source that only mentions the subject in like just one line out of twenty pages or something. If you don't have at least three sources at this point (preferably ones that are independent of each other), the subject is not currently notable and it's best to just go work on something else.
- 3) Take those professional sources that are specifically about the subject but independent of it, and summarize them, putting citations at the end of each summary.
- 4) Combine overlapping statements (and citations) where necessary or possible (without arriving at new statements).
- 5) Paraphrase the whole thing once again just to be certain you don't have any copyright violations or plagiarism.
- 6) Post this draft to establish the subject's notability. Then expand it with other sources (like ones that only mention the subject once, or sources connected to the subject).
- Ian.thomson (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- The article was deleted because the topic was deemed to lack notability. You can read the deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeben jameson. The problem is not going to be fixed unless: lots of new coverage (in the kind of sources Ian.thomson listed above) has been published between last year and now, or, if you have found lots of older sources like that that the people in the deletion discussion are likely to have missed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Finnusertop and Xanthe Milton: I must strongly disagree that
Examples of useless citations are Youtube and Discogs. Seriously, don't bother linking to those ever.
Youtube is a platform. Many of the items posted on it are completely unsuitable as sources for Wikipedia articles. Others are highly reliable, excellent sources. For example, some news organizations post official copies of broadcast news stories to Youtube. These are as good as printed newspapers as sources. Other posting vary. The source of the content is generally the important factor, and Youtube sources range very widely indeed. Discogs is an excellent source for the basic publication facts of music: titles, artists, dates, publishers, credits, and track listings. In some cases it carries signed reviews which may be useful. I have cited it many times when adding sources to articles about albums. What it mostly does not do is add much to notability. But many sources are useful once notability is established, even if they do not themselves help establish notability. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC) - I would also say that
don't bother with sources made by the subject
is poor advice. Such sources can be essential, provided that one realizes that they do not help establish notability. But they can be used to support facts not in contention, but that are helpful or even essential to providing proper context to an article. See WP:SELFPUB where it says thatSelf-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities
provided that, among other tingsthe article is not based primarily on such sources.
DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC) - I will mention that
connections he has to high profile people, bands etc.
are generally not a good way to establish notability. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC) @Ian.thomson: - I would also note there there is really no such thing as
Wiki HQ
. There are individual editors, some of whom are quite experienced, giving individual views. A deletion discussion tries to form a consensus out of the views of several editors. But it is still not the result of some sort of official "HQ" pronouncement. Except for the very few cases in which a foundation policy or office action applies, each individual editor speaks only for him- or herself. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)- @DESiegel: Your pings are mixed up (such that it looks like you're telling me that there's no such thing as "Wiki HQ"). My comments were in the context of establishing notability. In 2, I did say
don't bother with sources made by the subject
, and later (in 6) I said that once notability is established to expand the article using sources that 2 rejected. If the first draft is just sources that establish notability, the article is less likely to be deleted because its notability is more immediately clear. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)- Ian.thomson, I apologize for the poorly placed pings. I meant to ping both the original poster and all those who replied, left one out and added it, and then added an additional comment about the "Wiki HQ".
- I see your point about using independent sources in a first draft, and only when there are enough of those to clearly establish notability, adding in non-independent sources. That is reasonable, and i mis-read your comments. My apologies for that also. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC) @Ian.thomson: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @DESiegel: Your pings are mixed up (such that it looks like you're telling me that there's no such thing as "Wiki HQ"). My comments were in the context of establishing notability. In 2, I did say
- @Finnusertop and Xanthe Milton: I must strongly disagree that
- The article was deleted because the topic was deemed to lack notability. You can read the deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeben jameson. The problem is not going to be fixed unless: lots of new coverage (in the kind of sources Ian.thomson listed above) has been published between last year and now, or, if you have found lots of older sources like that that the people in the deletion discussion are likely to have missed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Mozillawiki
Mozilla Attn: Mozilla’s Designated DMCA Agent 331 E. Evelyn Avenue Mountain View, CA 94041
Mozilla’s Designated Agent’s fax is [redacted].
What happens after sending the DMCA Notice?
If the Notice complies with the requirements of the DMCA, we will remove or disable access to the content that is allegedly infringing. We will make a good faith attempt to notify the alleged infringer of the takedown, with a copy of your DMCA Notice. We also may send a copy of your DMCA Notice to Lumen or post to our wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelynam27 (talk • contribs)
- @Lovelynam27: I don't know what you refer to but you are in the wrong place. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Legal issues should be sent to the legal department and not discussed here. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us RudolfRed (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Pokémon Crystal
Good day.I just wanted to find out if a Pokémon Crystal page would be a notable topic.The thing is,all other Pokemon core series games have their own pages,including the remakes such as Yellow, Emerald and Platinum and even the enhanced remakes have pages such as Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire and Ultra Sun and Moon. So why not Crystal since it is just as much an enhanced remake as the other remakes are ? It even introduced some firsts for the Pokémon series that would go on to become staples in subsequent releases! So please,let me know if its notable as I'm willing to create the page and bring it up to the standards of the other Pokemon pages....and also it would be my first page as I just started Wiki about 3 weeks ago.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miskazama 101 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifibility, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
- Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
- Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
- Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
- Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
- Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
- Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
- Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Creating a page on Operation Spartan Shield
So my Draft:Operation Spartan Shield is an extremely rough start. I’m looking to consolidate some information on locations, activities, and dates of units that have been deployed in support of this mission since 2011. It is related to Task Force Spartan. I have a semester of HS HTML experience and that was 12 years ago so I’m reteaching myself the basics here and could use any help given. RussHink (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RussHink (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, RussHink. I recommend that you read Your first article. As for the details of coding, Help:Cheatsheet should be useful to you. Please ask specific questions here at the Teahouse at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Newbie wants to query a fact
Hi, I found some information that may be wrong in a Wikipedia article. I am not sure enough to edit the article. How do I leave a message for the page editors (with links) showing that the info may be wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beep4BoingEE1 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Beep4BoingEE1. You can leave a note on the article's talk page, usually accessed by clicking the "Talk" tab at the top of the page if you are viewing on PC. If you then click the "New section" tab, you can start a new thread to discuss the changes. If you include the text
{{Help me}}
(including the curly brackets) along with your comment, it will be added to a list of request to be answered by experienced volunteers. Be sure to include a reference to the source of the information, so that the content you would like changed can be verified. - Alternatively, you might consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure, which covers a lot of the basics about editing, so that you can fix this or other errors you might find in the future yourself, and help us build a better encyclopedia directly. Hope this helps. GMGtalk 12:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Beep4BoingEE1, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best way to do that is to post on the talk page of the article in question, including any relevant links. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC) @Beep4BoingEE1: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I clicked on Talk but couldn't find a way to leave a message, so I made an edit and added an explanation with links. My edit shows on the article but I cannot find any evidence of the change in the revision history. Why? Beep4BoingEE1 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Deletion
How do you nominate a page for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobs1 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Roobs1. There are a few different ways that content on Wikipedia can be deleted. It will probably help us to better answer your question if you can give us an indication of what you would like to nominate for deletion and why. GMGtalk 12:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Writing an article for a non-commercial body
Hi there,
I have been commissioned to write an article for a non-commercial body. They are a professionally formed committee that sets out guidelines and principles for a specific industry. I see that I should not just copy/paste from their website, however if they were to donate information from their website, would that be permissible to use in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLL87 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hey JLL87. First off, you should carefully review our policies on conflicts of interest and be sure to abide by them, since not doing so can attract a lot of unwanted attention. This includes disclosing your outside relationship, usually on your userpage, which can be created by clicking on the red link where your name is. Should you write an article, you should also submit it for our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer prior to publishing.
- You are correct that in nearly all cases we cannot use information copied from elsewhere online for copyright reasons. For these purposes, it is technically true that if the owner of the content follows the instructions at WP:CONSENT, and agrees to license the content appropriately, this removes the legal barrier regarding copyright. However, even if that is accomplished, most content online is still not suitable for Wikipedia, because it is not written in the neutral encyclopedic tone expected of our articles.
- Beyond that, if there are no other sources for information on the subject other than the official website, then it likely does not meet our standards for notability, which requires sustained in-depth coverage in independent published sources, usually things like books, magazines and newspapers, and excluding things like press releases and official websites. If the subject has not received this type of coverage, then it is likely too soon for it to qualify for an article, and if one is created, it will likely be deleted. GMGtalk 12:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, JLL87. Something that is implicit in GMG's answer, but that I would like to make explicit is: Wikipedia has very little interest in anything said about themselves by the subject of an article, or by their friends, relatives, employees, or associates: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it, in reliable places. Many people (and particularly, organisations, commercial or not) have a misconception that a Wikipedia article is or can be part of their online presence: it may not. Promotion of any kind is forbidden (not only commercial promotion), and the subject of an article has no control whatever over its contents. You may find it useful to read the essay WP:PROUD. --ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
How to nominate a page for deletion
I have been on WikiPedia for a while to know that fake news has had a big impact on wikipedia so i would like to know how to nominate a page for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobs1 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Roobs1. We generally do not delete articles for reasons of bias, of the type that might be caused by the use of poor quality sources. Instead, the article should be improved by replacing these with high quality published sources, and more accurate information. GMGtalk 12:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Roobs1 If you don't like how reliable sources report the news, you need to take that up with them. If you wish to challenge the validity of a source, you need to visit the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but just saying it's "fake" will not be enough. We provide sources so that readers can verify the information themselves to decide for themselves. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
How to Prevent an Article from Being Deleted
Hi,
Recently, I've tried submitting a doctor's bio and it has been shut down times. The page has been reported by the same person and all 3 times deleted. Wikipedia doesn't have a call center and I'm interested in finding a solution for a page when you have one person constantly reporting your page. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.248.27.69 (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello anon. The solution is to write an article and/or choose a subject that does not qualify for deletion according to the rationale that was provided to you when the article was nominated. If that was because the article was overly promotional, the solution would be to write an article that is neutrally worded. If that was because the subject does not meet our standards for notability, the solution is to write about a different subject, or wait until this subject has received in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, so that they do meet this standard. That one person repeatedly nominated the article is immaterial, because the standards for deletion are agreed upon by the community, and apply equally across the encyclopedia. GMGtalk 14:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- While experience shows that the problem is probably the article and not the editor who has deleted it multiple times, there are venues for getting input from uninvolved editors cases like this. See Wikipedia:Deletion review. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Translating articles from other wikis and using non-english sources
Hello, I'm relatively new to actually creating content from scratch on wikipedia. I'm planning on creating an independent article out of Hymnos conlang by using the sources from jp/zh articles, but I'm not totally sure if this is allowed. Is it? NinuKinuski (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, NinuKinuski. Translation from other language Wikipedias is allowed, and even encouraged provided 1) the licence is satisfied by attributing the source appropriately, and 2) the result meets English Wikipedia's criteria. (I understand that not all language Wikipedias have identical policies for referencing and notability, so that does not necessarily follow). See WP:Translation for more on this. I would recommend treating it as a new article, and using the article wizard: some or all of the content can be translated from the other language articles, provided it can be referenced as required by enwiki.
- As to sources: yes, non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, if there are not adequate English sources. They still need to be reliable sources (so you cannot use a Wikipedia article as a source, ever). See WP:NONENG for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
How does a draft page become public
Hi
How does a draft page become public and how long does this process usually take. If I've written a draft page, is there a way I can keep track of progress?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lottem88 (talk • contribs)
- @Lottem88: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Drafts are "public" in the sense that anyone looking for them can see them, though they are not part of the encyclopedia. Do you mean to ask how your draft can be formally placed in the encyclopedia? 331dot (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes that's the one.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lottem88 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Lottem88: I have added the appropriate template to your draft to allow you to submit it for review. Reviews are conducted by volunteers, so it may take time. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Not many of us work Articles for creation, and it's backlogged a couple months. Ravenswing 23:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Unsupported parameters for infobox company
The page Hill's Pet Nutrition contains a Infobox company template. It looks like it has unsupported parameters. How do i fix this and where are the unsupported parameters? Thanks, PorkchopGMX2 (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- There's a line in the infobox that starts "| Brands = ". Infobox company does not support a parameter named "Brands". You could fix it by replacing "Brands" by "brands", which is supported. Maproom (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
BEST Wikipedia poster
In need of BEST Wikipedia poster we can find that's affordable! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.54.159.207 (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- This is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, though some editors have created more articles than others. We are all volunteers here, we don't get paid, so we are all "affordable". You can request an article at WP:Requested articles. Beware of scams offering paid editing. Dbfirs 16:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Or there is this rather nice category on commons, or try C:Category:Wikipedia promotion. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Sandbox frozen?
Hi I created my first article yesterday, yeah! I moved it from my sandbox to the main Wikipedia and it clearly appears there. However, it is still in my sandbox and now I can't type in my sandbox at all. I have reviewed the sandbox howto and all sorts of getting started on Wikipedia materials and can't figure out why I can't use my sandbox anymore. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profarch (talk • contribs) 16:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Your sandbox has been blanked for you by Shalor (Wiki Ed) so you can now reuse it. Dbfirs 16:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) When you moved the article, it left behind a redirect in place of your sandbox. Shalor blanked the redirect page. I've added the {{user sandbox}} template back to the page so should now look like a regular blank sandbox to you. There should be no reason why you can't go on using it. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 16:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Profarch and welcome to the Teahouse. I forgot the greeting ritual we normally do in my haste to respond. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 16:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Should Draft:132456 be deleted?
I was browsing around looking for drafts and i found Draft:132456. This draft was created by a user near 00:00 12 October 2017. They typed random letters and, and then a few minutes later they blanked the page and left only a References section which was also blank. To me, this looks like it should be deleted. It contains nothing but a References section that is also blank. I think it should be deleted per Wikipedia:A3. However, i understand that i am new and i dont understand everything on Wikipedia. I apologize for asking another question a few hours after another. Thanks, PorkchopGMX2 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Drafts are not eligible for the "A" criteria, but this looks like a test page to me. Adam9007 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Publishing Relevant Pages
Hello - I have a working relationship with a notable podcast called The Fantasy Footballers. They have been featured by several reputable media sources, are recognized both the Fantasy Football community plus the Podcasting community, and have won top awards from reputable organizations at the top of both fields.
I would love some advice as to how to accomplish publishing a page for them - we've tried once, which got deleted, and would rather get advice than keep getting shut down. Is it impossible for us to successfully create? We're sincerely trying to add neutral information about them as they have an immense impact on both the podcasting and fantasy sports industries.
Here are references (please excuse my lack of html knowledge)
Two (out of many) Awards:
Academy of Podcasting Award
Wiki Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast_Awards
2016 People's Choice Award: http://academyofpodcasters.com/past-winners/
Fantasy Sports Trade Association (FSTA)
Wiki Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_Sports_Trade_Association
Awards: https://fsta.org/awards/fsta-industry-awards/
News / Press / Articles List:
Patreon Blog - https://blog.patreon.com/fantasy-footballers/
IHeartRadio - https://www.iheart.com/content/2017-11-07-dominate-fantasy-football-with-the-fantasy-footballers-podcast/
Fantasy Footballers Website: https://www.thefantasyfootballers.com/
7sIntern (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 7S Intern
- Read the information at WP:YFA about how to create an article. There is a wizard there you can use to create a draft article for review. Please also read the guidance at WP:COI and WP:PAID and post the required disclosures. RudolfRed (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed Draft:Cynthia MacAdams and declined it as being non-neutral and apparently written to praise its subject rather than describing her neutrally. Its author User:Lynneuna asked me to re-review it. I see that it has been edited by two editors whose edits are focused almost entirely on her, so I have asked about conflict of interest. She does appear to be notable. I am also asking here for the comments of other experienced neutral editors.
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- In February, because I had some idle time, I trimmed the article by about 25% in an attempt to tone down the gush. Could use more trimming, especially those lists, but if not NPOV, approaching. David notMD (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Cut the list of museums (saved in Talk). Most had no supporting ref. Of the two that did, the Smithsonian was one photograph, and the Tweed was a visiting show of 26 women photographers of whom CM was one. Lynneuna has since put the entire list back, still without references. David notMD (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed Draft: The Untouchable (band) but didn’t accept it or decline it. I asked which of the musical notability criteria was applicable. I got a long answer on my talk page from User:DMV2017, but I am not really sure how to respond: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=830202306&oldid=830151714 Will other experienced editors please comment?
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed Draft:Northeast Arc and declined it as reading more like an advertisement for the organization than a neutral description. User:Dthomson102467 asked me to re-review it, saying that they had made the language more neutral. They have made the language more neutral, but the draft still has the same notability issues as I mentioned in the first decline, because it has no independent references. I see that the author has edited only about the organization, and I have asked about conflict of interest. Will other experienced editors please comment on the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- That draft has many problems, Robert McClenon and Dthomson102467. The most severe problem is the complete lack of references to coverage of the group in reliable, independent sources. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what such sources say. Another serious problem is that the body of the draft is filled with external links, which is not allowed. There are formatting problems that can be resolved easily but only if the two major problems are addressed first. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Another problem is that the draft is about a local chapter of Arc of the United States. We normally do not have articles about chapters or branches of larger groups. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Ismet Asllani
Hi guys,
Can anyone here contribute to the article that I have wrote about Ismet Asllani?
I believe, there are much more information out there that is relevant to add to the article and hence improve it even more?
I would also like to improve my skills further as editor in Wikipedia. Anyone here with some good advice?
BR,
Makolli86 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makolli86 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Makolli86, and welcome to the Teahouse. Seeing that you are very motivated and competent in this subject, I think you are in the best position to improve the article right now. If you can find more information in more sources, be bold and expand the article. When you feel that you've exhausted your effort or can no longer find new sources, you could post a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kosovo that has editors who are also interested in similar topics, or try Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Remember, there is no deadline, so you can keep improving the article as you find new sources. I've performed some minor copyedit. Overall, I think the article looks promising. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Articles references approachable
Is it possible for wikipedia to approach an article for profitable purposes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreenLantern (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Can you clarify what you mean by that? If you are referring to writing an article for promotional purposes, then Wikipedia is not the place for that as it is an encyclopedia. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 03:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- If you are being paid by someone to write an article, you must disclose this information per Wikipedia's paid-contribution disclosure policy. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Pages for individuals buried in a pioneer cemetery (not notable people)
I am assisting a local library to consider options for sharing information about a pioneer cemetery.
Currently the information is in a non digital format. I have suggested that Wikipedia offers an option to get general information online, but am not sure if multiple pages (900 entries) would be 'allowed' under wikipedia guidelines for each person listed. They would be individually referenced against the burial register (so they are referenced individuals).
What would other Wikipedians suggest?
James — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Leech (talk • contribs) 04:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- An article for each burial? No. We only have pages for notable individuals. See WP:NBIO and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. An article for the cemetery? Possibly, if the cemetery is notable. See WP:GNG. A list of all 900 burials in the cemetery article (assuming the cemetery is notable enough to warrant an article)? No. Individual entries would still have to be notable. A standalone list of all 900 burials in the cemetery? Not unless the topic of who is buried there is notable. See WP:LISTN. Meters (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- @James Leech: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia is not simply a means to disseminate information, this is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to be notable. As Meters indicates, the cemetery would need to be shown to be notable in order to merit an article here, and even if it was, that would not necessarily mean that every burial there could be listed in the article. I would wonder if teaming up with a local historical society that might have a website would be a better option for what you want to do. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- findagrave.com and billiongraves.com are websites for listing cemeteries and people interred in those cemeteries, and photographs of headstones and historical information on the cemetery and the individuals and genealogy. David notMD (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- @James Leech: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia is not simply a means to disseminate information, this is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to be notable. As Meters indicates, the cemetery would need to be shown to be notable in order to merit an article here, and even if it was, that would not necessarily mean that every burial there could be listed in the article. I would wonder if teaming up with a local historical society that might have a website would be a better option for what you want to do. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
George Roy has been cited in existing Wikipedia pages like City Dump HBO, Broad Street Bullies documentary and others
I am trying to create and maintain a simple wikipedia page for George Roy and having some difficulties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avalanche2018 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Editors have cleaned up the article and made it into an acceptable stub. --NeilN talk to me 16:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Question
Isn't there some page where a person can view the newest created articles?? Thanks Goveganplease (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Goveganplease: Hello and welcome. Special:NewPagesFeed is what you are looking for. This page is accessible through the Recent Changes page as well. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Since you are being so helpful 331dot, isn't there an added tool that extended confirmed users can use as well?? A tool that allows them to mark pages for deletion and review pages?? Thanks again Goveganplease (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- You may be referring to Twinkle(though you just have to be autoconfirmed to use it) or to Page Curation(where you have to request the ability to use it and meet the criteria listed at the link). 331dot (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- The old school view is here: Special:NewPages. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
A thankless task?
I have been working on a number of pages involving Greek railways (updating, expanding and creating). I do this because it needs to be done and it takes my mind off other issues (not for any personal glory as such). However, a little feedback on how I am doing would not go amiss... Thank You The Emperor of Byzantium (talk)
- Hi The Emperor of Byzantium, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thankyou for your contributions. Please see Dash#En dash for the correct way to refer to the line from A to B. (Lots of editors get this wrong.) Dbfirs 20:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Dbfirs thank you for your feedback, that helps... silly little mistake maybe, but it courses all sorts of issues and knock-on effects. I'm Dyslexic so it's that much harder but coding is something I enjoy and any feedback (as long as its constructive) is welcomed Thank You The Emperor of Byzantium (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Why Is My Draft:Matt Ox Declined?
When I Create a draft, its not rejected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamienDaEsketit (talk • contribs) 20:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- @DamienDaEsketit: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The user who declined your draft gave you the reason why and some advice in their decline notice. Your draft does not indicate with independent reliable sources how Matt Ox meets the notability guidelines for musicians listed at WP:BAND. Please review those guidelines, and if Matt meets at least one of them, you will need to show it with independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Another sandbox question
Hi I wrote my first article yesterday and accidentally did something to my sandbox. Someone here fixed it (thank you!), but I don't know how they did it and now I'm stuck again with the second article I wrote. I have reviewed the training materials, but clearly I am missing something in the steps to creating an article and moving it properly to the mainspace. I think today I may have accidentally renamed my sandbox as the name I was trying to move from the sandbox to the mainspace. Now I don't know how to fix that. I don't know why I'm having such trouble following the directions to creating an article in the sandbox and moving it to the main space but if you can help and also suggest any other training material I would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profarch (talk • contribs) 21:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Profarch, and welcome back to the Teahouse. Apparently, you moved your sandbox to Beer Doctors (at 11:38, 13 March 2018 ET). This left a redirect pointing to the Beer Doctors page in your sandbox. Then, a minute or two later, you moved the sandbox page, then a redirect, to Vasant Shinde. That page has since been deleted as a test, since it never had any content but a redirect to Beer Doctors.
- I have now reset your sandbox. I did this by editing it and replacing the entire content by
{{user sandbox}}
in this edit. You can do the same any time you want to reset your sandbox in future. - By the way, I don't think that Beer Doctors is ready to be a mainspace article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
How to put the translation of the title if the subject is a foreign thing?
So I've seen something like: StuffInOtherLang (lit. EnglishTranslationOfTheThing). What template you use for that? And the pronounciation thing that displays pronounciation in IPA. What template should be used when dealing with foreign language things? TryKid (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
moving
i need help finding a place to move into i have practically no experience in looking or finding a new place to live im really mostly a loner and would prefer something for just myself any help really i have no clue where to start our how to find a place for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexawap (talk • contribs) 01:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@Mexawap: Hello there. Unfortunately The Teahouse is for discussing questions about editing Wikipedia. Sorry. But thanks for dropping by. Thegooduser Let's Chat 01:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Why Raj Era Sources are not Accepted
Hello i have a problem regarding an article and all my edits are reverted as those Sources are belonged to British Raj Era of india. So, here my doubt is Why Raj Era Sources are not Accepted and what was the reason behind it Sathishkagitha (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Sathishkagitha, and welcome to the Teahouse. As I understand it, in short, these sources are generally not seen as WP:RELIABLE, being to a great extent to old and wrong. When it comes to sources as old as this, they should in general not be used directly, but through the works of respected more contemporary scholars. You can find links to several WP-discussions about such sources at User:Sitush/CasteSources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- The sources Sathishkagitha has been trying to use are scholarly works, published in 1896 and in 1909. I doubt that reliability is in fact the issue. Maproom (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Maproom, the British Raj didn't end until 1947, so 1909 sources still are definitely "Raj era". @Sathishkagitha: the reason for mistrusting Raj-era sources is that they are interwoven with British political priorities (not to mention scientific racism) in India which is seen as contaminating their truthfulness and objectivity. So there is a strong preference for using post-Raj sources by recognized academics. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- The sources Sathishkagitha has been trying to use are scholarly works, published in 1896 and in 1909. I doubt that reliability is in fact the issue. Maproom (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- You may be right, but WP:AGE MATTERS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Templates in userspace?
Hello everyone. I would like to create a template or two for my own personal use, and I would like to have a place where to put my "unfinished" templates, so that I can work on them in chunks. Is there a way to create templates in the userspace, so that they stay "personal"? Thank you very much for reading my question. ---roroke (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi roroke. You can transclude userspace pages like templates by giving the full page name, e.g.
{{User:Roroke/sandbox}}
. Parameters and template code work the same way as in the template namespace. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)- Thank you for the tip Hunter, I'll do just that. ---roroke (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Roroke, I frequently use userspace pages when i am developing and testing a new or revised template. However, you should be aware that pages in your userspace can be seen by anyone who chooses to look, and content in userspace pages is available for reuse by others on the same terms as all Wikipedia content. Most Wikipedia editors do not look at the userspace of other users, but some do. One can get a list of any user's userspace pages. For example here is a list of pages in my userspace. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the tip Hunter, I'll do just that. ---roroke (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
New here, please help
Hello, I have posted a new biograhical article presently in draft form. The initial posting was very brief, Curb Safe Charmer(talk) was nice about it he suggested a visit to this Teahouse and suggested I add more details and references. I have done it since and submitted again for a review. Not sure if the references are properly formatted. Find it quite daunting. If anyone can help it will be appreciated. The article is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Prem_Nath_Sahni Have not figured out how to enter talk properly yet and what tilde means and what is their application. But guess without trying one will never learn. Regards to any who read this and apologize for any errors.
shyamu111(talk)--Shyamu111 (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Shyamu111: I have left you some comments at the top of your draft. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- shyamu111 if you are using a keyboard which does not easily have a way to type "~" four times, please note instead above your editing window there is a line of symbols that has a B then an I and then a tiny image of a pen signing a name. You can simply click that little signing-pen and it will sign and date your posts on Talk pages, without the need to type tildes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello thanks MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC) --Shyamu111 (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
MatthewVanitas (talk)Followed up on your comments. There was one reference that was a general one on Haryana that I have removed. All others have information on the person with name including the government documents because he was part of the government. Would love to post more info from newspapers of the time if I can find it. From my understanding he did appear in the newspapers then from time to time in news related to sports or governments of Punjab and Haryana, but so far discovered the leading newspapers of his time are not keeping archives i.e before 1999. Thanks again for your suggestions. Shyamu111 (talk--Shyamu111 (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi need help for my draft
Hi,
I am a little concerned for my draft : as it has a tagline for speedy deletion i have provided necessary changes. Kindly let me know hoe can i improve my draft for getting it approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optrajennifer (talk • contribs) 07:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Optrajennifer and welcome to the Teahouse. You created Abhijeet Gholap in article space. It would probably have been better if you had created a draft in WP:Draft space where you would have been allowed time to get your draft into shape and make improvements before moving it to live space. I'd recommend draft space for starting any future articles, then you do not risk speedy deletion. There is lots of advice, and a question that you need to answer, on your talk page. Dbfirs 08:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Optrajennifer, I assumed from your post that you meant the article to be a draft, so I moved it to draftspace for you and left you a message. That said, it had been through AFC before and I'm not clear how it got approved.
- But the larger issue is that currently you are accused of failing to state your Conflict of Interest as a presumed paid editor, and if you don't respond to those allegations, your account may be blocked, and it would not be unlikely that the Admin would "salt" the page so that it could never be re-created without Admin involvement (to make sure someone does not come back by a different name and try to create the article). So please do the needful, check your Talk page and respond to the concerns that you are simply here to promote a business. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Have my contributions helped?
Hello. I'm unsure if I have made a little more work for contributors on some pages/articles I have contributed to. Thanks 🖍S 09:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrayonS (talk • contribs)
- Hello, CrayonS. From a quick look at your contributions in articles, in particular Sándor Pósta, they are overwhelmingly positive, so be sure we (as a community) appreciate them even if you get no feedback for it. Was there something in particular that you wanted more eyes on?
- Also, just a note that this (and the following on that IP talk page) were not a high point of your Wikipedian career. It is certainly not a big deal but you are supposed to remain "civil" (=polite, essentially) even in front of reckless vandals, see also WP:DNFT. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you. I actually get these pages from the random link. <3 just made a contribution to the Spotify article. I agree I should've not said anything about the vandal. At least I didn't WP:DNB and went with Hanlon's Razor. Thanks 🖍S 17:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep up the great work, CrayonS! That is what I remember from years back when I started too: as a new user it's difficult to know if my contributions were improvements, as not every edit I made received feedback. But rest assured, be bold in making edits and, if necessary, engage in constructive discussion to reach agreement with other editors. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
writing submissions
thank you for your responses. i will be able to review the suggestions prior to siting an submission in a manner you find acceptable. again thank you for your suggestions,assistance, and time assistance. i look forward to a long an long relationship . sincerely, kstarr marlo,ceo,phd marlowecharities,celestialproductions,krazy4musik,krazy4politiks and other companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbmnj (talk • contribs) 10:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Further to the previous conversation, I'm still puzzled about your reasons for refusing to write in standard English. I'm also concerned about possible conflicts of interest if you create articles about your companies, but perhaps that is not your intention. Dbfirs 10:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Sand box review.
Hi, and yes its good to talk especially regarding procedures. I am working in my Wikipedia Sandbox. as I would like to send the edits and text for review by Wikipedia volunteers. The bar at the top of the page enquiring if I want to send the text for review is no longer visible. Question for you, how do I send the text for review, or has this changed, and we can no longer send text information for review via the sandbox?
Best regards Mike ( new to Wikipedia) MikeWilkins (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- You accidentally removed the "User sandbox" template in one of your edits. I have re-added it to your sandbox. Keep your edits below the line that says "EDIT BELOW THIS LINE" so you don't accidentally remove it again. Iffy★Chat -- 12:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
My Article - Dr. Devasia Kurian is deleted
I have written an article Dr. Devasia Kurian on his biography but it has been deleted with a reason of advertising but the article does not have any promotion or advertising content then why it has been deleted?. How can I retrieve the page and re-edit to approve the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.alam (talk • contribs) 12:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, F.alam, and Welcome to the Teahouse}}. Please understand that on Wikipedia, "promotion" includes not merely commercial advertising, but any content intended to promote or favor a subject. In the article Dr. Devasia Kurian, which you largely wrote, such phrases as
A focused, passionate and futurist
,His distinctive leadership style has made *astTECS sprint ahead in growth and technology solution metricsis
,Dr. Kurian's entrepreneurial acumen were proved
,A well-rounded individual, he is known to have a very calm and gentle nature ...
,Dr. Devasia Kurian has led the company's brilliant foray...
, andrevolutionary open source based telephony solutions
are all quite promotional in tone. In general Wikipedia articles should be strictly and narrowly factual, with opinions and judgements present only if they are directly attributed to a named and cited source, preferably via a direct quote. Adjectives of quality, such as "distinctive" should usually be avoided. - I also urge that you start any new articles as drafts in WP:DRAFTSPACE where they can be reviewed before all the rules of mainspace apply. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Finished writing a wikipedia page, how do I publish for review?
Hi -- I need help... I finished a wikipedia page about a famous person in Orange County, California, USA. Now, I want to publish for review but when I push the prompt button to "publish for review" a yellow box appears that tells "Press the Publish changes button at the ⇓ bottom ⇓ of the edit box to request a new review. A box explaining details about this submission will appear at the bottom of the page. An automated robot will update the page later and remove the draft article box" -- but there is not a "Publish changes" button at the bottom of the edit box.
Thank you for your help and direction.
Carol Finizza, Wikipedia editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:4401:6B00:98FA:AE4D:ED88:38F2 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Carol. Welcome to Teahouse. As much as we'd like to help you, we need to have some more information to do so. The post I'm replying to is the only edit that has ever been made from the IP address you're posting from. Did you forget to sign in? If you don't have an account, we'll need a link to the draft you are talking about in order to help. John from Idegon (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Help with Location Map being put into my Info Box
Dear teahouse, I am trying to add a Location Map into my Info Box. Could you please help to do this. The page I'm editing is Hutton_Moor_End. The page is about a place in Cumbria, England. The Latitude is- 54.634943 and the Longitude is -2.985794 The Country is England, the shire county is Cumbria and the post code is CA11 0SX. The location's OS grid reference is NY365271. When I try to do it I get close but not close enough and it is not being certified. Thank You. DavidJonesMore (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Wikilink for convenience: Hutton Moor End. John from Idegon (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Article deletion "NEO-Americana cooking style"
I recently submitted an article titled Neo_Americana cooking style. This is completely different than New American cooking. The NEO-Americana style is encompassing all the worlds food. The project has been in the process for ten years. New American is just trendy food from the USA, and does not encompass all 192 countries of the world or their food. The use of cooking techniques and ingredients from around the world to create fusion blends of any or all countries is the goal of the NEO-American Style. And the additional projects from this style should be included in Wikipedia.Thomasbadillo95 (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Thomasbadillo95
- Hello, Thomasbadillo95, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want the deletion of NEO-Americana cooking style to be reconsidered, contact the deleting admin on their talk page at: User talk:Anthony Appleyard. If you two cannot reach consensus, the next step is to post a message at Wikipedia:Deletion review. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Help with- Infobox UK place with more than one value for the "coordinates" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used.
Hello, I am trying to insert a Infobox UK place into my Infobox but when I do it this message appears- Warning: Hutton Moor End is calling Template:Infobox UK place with more than one value for the "coordinates" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. This is what I am putting into my edit source- coordinates = 54°38′02″N 2°59′06″W / 54.634°N 2.985°W Could you help me please? The page I'm editing is Hutton_Moor_End Thank You, DavidJonesMore (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Why did my article get deleted?
Hi, I wrote an article about a rare medical condition my brother has, but it got flagged for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.220.125 (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are not logged in right now, so we are unable to see what articles you have created. Please tell us either your username or the name of the article so that we can look into it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
how do I become an admin
I understand that it seems like Wikipedia is understaffed in the admin section because it took them a month to respond to me to get an account I would like to stress how thankful, lucky and happy I am to be a user. and I would like to help speed up that process I don't want to use it improperly or abuse it I just want to help administrate more great and peaceful editors to Wikipedia or block and disrupt vandalism. so now that I have explained anything I might want to do I would like to ask a few Questions are there any requirements for admin privileges? e.g. seniority of a year and a certain number of edits or articles published or something else. also is restricted admin privileges a thing like for simply banning and stopping accounts that proliferate vandalism? furthermore, I would like to stress my respect for anyone who responds to this and will completely understand whatever is said I am simply curious about this process and hope that I can help administrate help to others.