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


WP teahouse logo.png

Most recent archives
694  695  696  697  698  699  700  701  702  703
704  705  706  707  708  709  710  711  712  713

can someone create a page for me?[edit]

looking for someone to start a page for me that i can then add to and edit . My name is Justin Scheman I was on season 27 of the amazing race ..thanks for the help 21:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinClassic1 (talkcontribs)

@JustinClassic1: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read our policy on autobiographies at WP:AUTO.In short, it is highly discouraged for users to create or edit pages about themselves, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. Article subjects must be shown to be notable (please read WP:N) with independent reliable sources (WP:RS). I'm not certain that a reality show contestant would qualify, as there is likely not extensive in depth coverage of you that is independent of you. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I know .. thats why i asked someone else to start/write one for me .... a simple good search for Justin Scheman or Justin and Diana will show thousands of results. I was on one of the most dominant teams in the history of the most awarded reality show on TV The Amazing Race. I also had my proposal video go viral and was on a few TV shows because of it like rachael ray and right this minute ....I was on MTV's "The Grind" for two years featured in over 50 music videos and been on morning radio for 15 years ... there are wiki pages for people with much less "accomplishments" JustinClassic1 (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@JustinClassic1: Please read WP:OSE; each article is judged on its own merits. If you see pages that do not meet the notability guidelines (WP:BIO) feel free to propose their deletion. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, inappropriate pages get through, sometimes for years.
Millions of Google hits would not necessarily equate to notability. Quality sources matter much more than quantity. The sources need to be independent and give in depth coverage of you. If you truly feel that you meet the notability guidelines, you can post to Requested Articles to request an article be written, but it is severely backlogged and it may be some time before it is written. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
JustinClassic1 - I, of course, echo what 331dot said. That said, on a cursory search it does appear there are a number of quality WP:RS spanning a period of time; enough, anyway, for a short and concise article. The only thing to keep in mind is that nothing could be put in it that wasn't included in those sources so, depending on what appears on a closer examination, you might be setting yourself up for disappointment. The other thing to remember is that, once created, a WP article is pretty much forever. Finally, biographies include the good and the bad. I'm not sure if there's any "bad" out there but if there is (and if it's not something you want a centralized archive of), you may want to rethink this idea! If this all seems fine, though, please post to my Talk page and I'd be happy to try and provide some one-on-one assistance to see if something that met the AfC criteria could be put together. Chetsford (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
are one of you going to actually help me make the article? JustinClassic1 (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I, for one have, no interest, seeing as how you ask. Maybe other volunteer Teahouse hosts might like that kind of stuff. Were you a mollusc, an obscure vascular plant or an overlooked female scientist, I might have been motivated. Creating vanity pages aren't for me, I'm afraid. But you have had a very generous offer from Chetsford, so why are you still coming across so darned pushy? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Can Somebody help me to create a Wiki page for a celebrity?2405:204:D300:6BC4:C048:50FB:B6ED:9F2D (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
You've posted your question at the end of JustinClassic1's question. Is your question connected? If not, then please post new questions at the bottom of the page, and tell us who it is that you want to write about, or create a draft (such as Draft:person), remembering to base your draft on relible sources. If it is connected, then the answers above are appropriate. Dbfirs 20:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of page AND accused of being sock puppet[edit]


I've been retained to create a Wikipedia page--which I disclosed on my "talk" page--per Wikipedia guidelines. I thought disclosure would meet the guidelines--is that not the case? Also, I have just been accused of being a "sock puppet" for another person who is a chronic editor for hire, and I most certainly am not. I am not sure how to defend that.

Moreover, I'm flummoxed about why the page was taken down. It is not promotional: it describes the company and its products, and it adheres to the Wikipedia guidelines ( It does not cite any self-promotional material and reflects notable third-party input from Gartner, Deloitte, Inc., the Wall Street Journal, and the like. It seems that the page is being punished because of the acts of the prior disreputable author, particularly when its peers in e-discovery and software aren't being removed from the site (e.g., Conduent, Recommind, Acquia (which includes some of the same links to Deloitte, for example, as the Zapproved article), Kentico, and the like).

My first foray into Wikipedia-land is certainly not turning out as I hoped! Any advice or help would be much appreciated.Kwalinsk (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwalinsk (talkcontribs) 01:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kwalinsk: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. While I can't view the deleted page (an administrator can) merely telling about a business is considered promotional on Wikipedia. You seem to be aware of the notability guidelines, you must show that this business meets the guidelines with independent reliable sources that have in depth coverage of the business(not interviews, press releases, basic announcements. or primary sources). You have dived right in to article creation, one of the most difficult things to successfully do here. You may want to read Your First Article to learn more.
Frankly you might want to give your client their money back as it will be difficult for you to simultaneously create a page they might want and that complies with Wikipedia guidelines. You cannot prevent others from editing it or lock it to the text you or your client might prefer. Having a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing for any person or business, as any information, good and bad can be in it as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Kwalinsk, I echo this statement. I am an admin, I have reviewed the deleted history and the multiple blocked accounts. Years ago I wrote this: User:JzG/And the band played on.... The same applies here, basically. Give them their money back. Also, your business model is unethical, but that's a side-issue. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Guy, I don't know why you think a freelance writing business is unethical. I'm a lawyer, and I write all kinds of copy for all types of businesses, and I pride myself on my ethics. I disclosed my affiliation, as per Wikipedia policy. I'm trying to do the right thing here. I've written one iteration of this page (not the prior ones), and I'm not sure why I'm being maligned here.Kwalinsk (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Guy, and to clarify, I've never written a Wikipedia page before. I read all the rules carefully before I started writing this one. I think I adhered to them. I think the history of the page is causing an issue, and that seems a bit unfair.Kwalinsk (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a volunteer-run charity-funded project. You are looking to monetise Wikipedia's popularity and reach, capitalising on years of work by people who were not paid a dime. That's unethical. The fact that you admit never having contributed anything to Wikipedia voluntarily underscores this. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Cirque du Soleil (continuation of discussion)[edit]

[User Estebanpirazo is continuing the discussion at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 706#Volta (Cirque du Soleil) article issues.]

First, Estebanpirazo, please do not edit an archived discussion. The notice at the top of the archive says "Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page."

I'm sorry you are having a frustrating time. You are having an ongoing disagreement with Justlettersandnumbers, who has explained why they do not think the information you are adding is encyclopaedic. I disagree with them about reliability of the source (which was what you quoted me for (please realise that what you quoted was the informed opinion of one editor - me - and I'm a little concerned that you quoted it as though it were a pronouncement from authority), but I think Wikipedia articles about shows often have entirely too much trivial information about dates. IN any case, what you should do is attempt to reach a consensus with Justlettersandnumbers, and if you cannot, follow the steps in dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this, ColinFine. Estebanpirazo is clearly puzzled that other articles contain unreferenced lists of tour dates, and has made a real effort to engage in discussion (for which my thanks, Estebanpirazo!). As for the reliability of the source, no source for those dates has been cited, either at Volta (Cirque du Soleil) or at Crystal (Cirque du Soleil),so I'm a little puzzled to hear that ColinFine thinks it might be reliable. I'd really appreciate some wider input on this. I've repeatedly encouraged Estebanpirazo to ask for advice here, and he didn't receive much when he last brought it here. Oh, and if I'm wrong, do please feel free to say so. Thanks, everyone. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies ColinFine and Justlettersandnumbers; it looks like we are finally trying to understand the issue here. The factual data on the articles that has been deleted are show dates and Creative Team. My question has always been: why is it being deleted from the article?, I agree with ColinFine's initial reply that this is information that could not be obtained from any other source than the official webpage, and it should be allowed to be referenced from an official source. Also, the other question that arises from this issue is if this content is deleted, should it also be deleted from the articles of all of the other Cirque du Soleil's shows, plus several musical concerts, touring Broadway shows articles, etc? (usually, all of those articles contain show dates, and a creative team list). I haven't received a satisfactory reply that answers both of these questions. Estebanpirazo (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the articles, Justlettersandnumbers: I was just going on where Estebanpirazo said they came from. If no sources are cited, that is a different matter. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
ColinFine, I remember I added a reference to their original website for the Creative Team list, and I don't remember if I added the same for the show dates schedule... but back to my question: will the show dates and Creative Team members be deleted from all of the other shows by Cirque du Soleil, due to this? (such as Luzia, Toruk, Kurios, Amaluna, Totem, Ovo, Koozå, Delirium, Corteo, Varekai, Dralion, Quidam... and many others?), and will it be done also to other touring shows in general? Estebanpirazo (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea, Estebanpirazo. This is a volunteer project, and people work on what interests them. There certainly are editors who value consistency enough that they will go back and make changes to bring existing article into line with newer consensus; but there are others who are more interested in finding new things to do. If Justlettersandnumbers, or another editor, feels that a consensus has been reached that they should be removed, then they might go and remove them; but they might not. As to your earlier question: I have expressed my view that things like dates are the kind of information that could come from non-independent sources: and I have said that in my opinion, many articles about shows contain too much detail about productions and dates. But I haven't expressed any opinion about these particular articles: I haven't looked at the articles. --ColinFine (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Module programming[edit]

Is a page here or on phabricator where to ask or discuss modules programming. I'm am interested on getting from a template the protection status of a page--Pierpao (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, Pierpao, welcome to the Teahouse, but after a couple of days it looks like we don't have an answer for you. The next place to try is probably WP:VPT. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Education section on Lytton Springs, Texas[edit]

Hello! In the article of Lytton Springs, Texas, I want to add to the education section of that article information about a school that was opened there recently. This is what I want to add to the section:

"In fall 2016, a new elementary school, Alma Brewer Strawn Elementary School, was opened in Lytton Springs. It was named for a respected staff member named Alma Brewer Strawn, who was a teacher in the district. It is the first campus to be built outside of the Lockhart, Texas city limits. It teaches grades PK-5. After it opened, a student attendance zone map was created, and the four elementary schools in Lockhart teach grades K-5."

I will not add this info to the article until I find sources to cite them. I cannot find the sources for them. Can someone please find the news reports showing this info? I will be looking at other articles to find out how to properly cite news reports. Thank you for taking the time to read this message, and I can't wait to hear from someone. Thanks! Colman2000 (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Colman2000. I find it odd that you know what you want to say, but don't know where to find the source to support you saying it. This seems the total opposite of how anyone should be creating content. That said, put your search words between double quotes in a Google search. viz. "Alma Brewer Strawn". That yields the school website url which you could put in External links, plus this press release from a manufacturer of playground equipment, and this about zone maps. Personally, I'd keep your first two sentences and cut the rest as possibly being too detailed. For referencing news sources, you can use the dropdown template selector to access the Cite News template in either editor. I often switch over to using VisualEditor when adding books or news sources as it does a fair job in automatically creating them from the url, with just a quick check to see if its worth adding anything else manually. Hoping this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you! I just added this info to the article, and after a few tweaks with it, I finally fixed it. Cheers! Kind regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Page was deleted[edit]

I am affiliated with a company called Revcontent... the page was recently deleted. I am looking for help in getting it set up, but want to follow all the rules and guidelines to ensure it won't be deleted for improper usage. I can provide media coverage about company from unaffiliated third party news orgs.

C.terenzi (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@C.terenzi: The usual advice is don't do this. It is difficult for new editors to create an article and doubly so to create a neutral article when you are affiliated. If you want to proceed, read WP:YFA on what is required for an article (particularly what it means to be notable) and then use the wizard there to create an article for review. You also need to disclose that you have a conflict of interest and if you are being paid. See WP:COI and WP:PAID. I would suggest instead you edit articles that where you don't have the conflict of interest. RudolfRed (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Is there someone who would help us create a new page? C.terenzi (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, C.terenzi. The problem you face is that articles are only deleted from Wikipedia because the consensus at the time was that the subject wasn't notable enough, as per our definition, which you can read here: WP:NORG. Has something suddenly changed to make you think its notability will be viewed any differently now? If so, you might stand a chance, but if not you will just find the article being proposed for deletion once again. I'm not able to see what the deleted article said, but if it contains substantially the same content it will probably be deleted again very quickly indeed. Sorry. (Oh, and the answer to your last question is "No", I'm, afraid.) Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello C.terenzi. Here is the discussion that led to deletion of the article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revcontent. An earlier version of the article was deleted several years previously. Please be aware that my search for coverage in reliable sources revealed harsh criticism of your company for peddling salacious and misleading clickbait advertising. Please be aware that any future article must include well-referenced criticism and your company will have no right to remove it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Just so it is clear they are also talking about Draft:Revcontent (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Revcontent). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Social Justice Topic[edit]


My name is Katie Neu and I am in the Master's of Higher Education program at Central Michigan University. I am editing as a part of my Social Justice class and was wondering if there were any topics that are understudied that would be under the umbrella of social justice umbrella. I am not married to any sort of topic, but would like to do research on one that is understudied.

Thank you for your assistance!

Katie (Katieneu0929 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Starting a new article from scratch is probably the single most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia, so I'd recommend finding an existing article that needs improvement rather than trying to write a new one. I would suggest looking through Category:Social inequality and its subcategories (click the little blue triangles to expand them) and reading the articles there until you find one that you feel should be improved and on which you're able to find appropriate sources to improve it. ‑ Iridescent 22:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I can't add to this answer, but may I ask a question which might help the poster, and which I don't know the answer to: Is there a way to combine a search of pages that match two or more categories. e.g. a search for all articles in Category:Social inequality which also match those flagged for, say, Category:All stub articles. All I can find is an exciting proposal here: WP:Category intersection, but no answers. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
There is PetScan. Mduvekot (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh wow, Mduvekot -that's the best new thing I've learnt on Wikipedia this year! Thank you. So, searching on the category of 'Social inequality' and the (normally) hidden category of 'All stub articles' we get five articles well worth addressing by someone interested in that topic: Distinction (sociology); Horizontal inequality; Equality of autonomy; Equality of autonomy; A Guerra não Declarada na Visão de um Favelado and Research in Social Stratification and Mobility. Looks like it might need a careful read the documentation to use to best effect, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I know. PetScan is incredibly useful. I love it. Mduvekot (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Katieneu0929, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'd like to add something to the valuable replies from Nick Moyes and Mduvekot. I see that you are a new editor, and I wanted to point out a pitfall that academics sometimes hit when they edit Wikipedia: writing a Wikipedia article is not like most academic writing. It is most like the "literature review" section of a dissertation, where the major sources are discussed and summarised. But a Wikipedia article must not go beyond that: it should not contain any argumentation or conclusions of its own (though of course it can summarise the argument or conclusions of a single source, as long as it clearly attributes them. It should not contain any evaluation, either of the subject or of the sources: if the sources disagree, it may report their different stance, but should not attempt to resolve them. And it should not bring together material from different sources to present a conclusion or argument which is not in any of the sources. Please see WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS for more information on these topics. I apologise if I'm stating the obvious. --ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a very useful observation - thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Im trying to create a page on wikipedia for a park. It keeps getting rejected.[edit]

Im trying to create a page on wikipedia for a park. It keeps getting rejected.

I have all the info, but Im not good with this sort of stuff.

All I want is for a factually correct page to exisit to replace one that is in a forgiegn language and has inforrect information.

Link to the page Im trying to create below.

Im also struggling with the format of editing wikipedia.

Can someone please help?

Thanks! Thedesignerguy (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thedesignerguy: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have dived right in to article creation, which is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. New users who are most successful at creating articles got that way by first editing existing articles in areas that interest them, in order to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is being looked for in articles. I might suggest that before continuing to edit your draft that you edit some existing articles, perhaps starting with small changes like spelling or grammar fixes, and working your way up to more substantive additions. Then when you at ready you can go back to article creation. You may also want to use The Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial of sorts for using Wikipedia, as well as reading Your First Article.
Regarding the draft itself, it has been rejected mostly because you initially copied the content from elsewhere. I think then you did make some changes, but the content that is there now doesn't seem to have sufficient citations to warrant an article of its own. Content like "the park has become a favorite for locals" or "It's also well known for its purple Jacaranda Tre" needs to be cited from an independent reliable source like a news story, review, etc. It's that apparent lack of in depth coverage in sources that led to the more recent rejection, suggesting you simply add some information about this park to the existing article about the neighborhood/area it is located in. I would have to agree that the park seems too small to warrant a separate article. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Note that existence in one language Wikipedia does not guarantee inclusion here: English Wikipedia has different, and higher, standards for sourcing and notability than many other language projects. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Please also see Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance on how to make your references into proper in-text citations, so that it is clear which source supports each part of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

How to i put an editorial question on an article to the general membership of WP?[edit]

On the article Mexico National Football Team there is use of the phrase Mexican national football team as the title instead of the approved translation from the original of Mexico national football team. I would like for others at WP to weigh in on the importance of maintaining the integrity of what is translated and put into use at WP in order that it does not appear that English users are imposing their grammar on the Spanish language users. How do i do this?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I see that you are already discussing the matter at Talk:Mexico national football team, which is the proper place for the discussion. If that discussion does not come to a satisfactory conclusion, then there are various forms of dispute resolution available. I have no opinion on the specific dispute. You may well be right. However, as a general principle, the English Wikipedia will render translations the same way that the preponderance of reliable English language sources do. We reflect published English language sources instead of trying to correct or improve them. We do not "impose" on Spanish language speakers because there is an entire Spanish language Wikipedia for speakers of that language, written and administrated by Spanish speakers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
You asked your question in the right place, at Talk:Mexico national football team. Interested editors will reply there. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, that is interesting because not only did I ask the question but then was rebiuffed and insulted for my English language skills and basically asked to go edit the Spanish WP? Now the person has me up for a warring advisory discussion. Is this what WP is all all about. If you feel challenged you start to go after people?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Cullen--you do impose on Spanish language WP users because if you say something is so in English then the English use world thinks that it is so. That is tantamount to WP endorsing it. The fact of the matter remains that the original title of the Mexico National Football Team was grammatically incorrectly translated probably based on some wrong assumption by an English speaking person. Now we have a situation where someone continues to use the old style and incorrect title translation. And for questioning that then i am called on the carpet for warring? beciae some English use senior editor here is being obstinate possibly about being challeneged? Again, this is the WP way?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if you repeatedly revert other editors' contributions to a talk page discussion (other than in the circumstances permitted by WP:TPO) you are likely to be warned about it and then reported to WP:AN3 if you continue. That is the WP way. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
When it comes to English language usage, we reflect what the preponderance of published English language sources say. In exactly the same way, the Spanish Wikipedia reflects Spanish language usage based on the preponderance of Spanish language sources. We call Germany "Germany" here as English language sources do, not "Deutschland" as the Germans do. To state the obvious, the German language Wikipedia describes American and British and Australian topics using common German words and phrases. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes but we don't then turn around and say the German national football team we say Germany national football team. Now you have someone saying that it is perfectly presentable to vary a title from what has been established by article title name of Mexic and change it to Mexican? Your Deuthcland did not help your position very much. At least i know amongst the English WP users i am welcomed at the Spanish language WP?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Was there something about "I have no opinion on the specific dispute. You may well be right." that you did not understand, or are you deliberately ignoring what I wrote above? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I really cannot understand how some of you WP people function. So now you are going to fault me for your faulty example? You may think that Mexico and Mexican are interchangeable but they are not especially in a situation where the translation is literal. Mexico in Spanish is Mexico and Mexican in Spanish is Mexicano/a. The host country title for the Mexico National Football Team is not Mexicano/a but Mexico. If anyone outside the US just dilly fdally changed the names of our institutions we would probably think they ignorant or insulting. Why should we treat other countries the same way i WP is to reach its full internation impact? So it seams to me that WP is more concerned about authority being followed than publishing in the correct manner? Especially if i am being welcomed to go elsewhere such as the Spanish language WP to edit. That certainly makes me feel welcomed.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
It is tedious to have to repeat "I have no opinion on the specific dispute. You may well be right." for a third time, but you have forced me to do so. Please drop your tendentious editing. It is unhelpful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This is not about translation. We all understand what the subject of the article is: the national football team that plays for Mexico. The issue (if you think there is an issue) is what name is usually used for it in English-language publications. Maproom (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Article removal[edit]

Hello! How can I remove the articles of Cronin, Texas and Greens Bluff, Texas? I can't find any information on these communities in the Handbook of Texas and I feel like they don't belong. How can I request them to be deleted or removed? Thanks for reading, and I can't wait to hear from someone! Colman2000 (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The guidelines on notability of places are at Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). The 2 articles to which you refer have references to the U.S. Geological Survey, which is rather more authoritative on geographical matters than the Handbook of Texas. If you wanted to nominate the articles for deletion, the 3 possible processes are at Wikipedia:Deletion process, but I wouldn't expect any such proposal to be successful as they have each been defined by USGS as a "Populated Place". --David Biddulph (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Colman2000. I agree with David Biddulph. I consider it highly unlikely that any attempt to delete an article about a populated place referenced to the Geographic Names Information System would be successful. I suggest that you either ignore these articles or try to improve them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I can understand your concern about these two articles in particular. Their suitability to have published WP articles is based more on the source credibility than the significance to the locality, state, country, etc. The real question is at what point does something warrant a separate article instead of being part of another larger overall article that until a sufficient amount of information about it calls for it to be published separately. It almost seems to beg the question of why do we have a standard for living persons or a company so that the publicity aspect of articles is not abused? But if the powers that be say that it should not be a concern then so let it be and have someone go through the source and establish a batch of articles that had best be started as a topic article instead of a specific locale with very little available to substantiate it. The only way for some of these "communities" to have their wordage increased is to look at primary sources which is not the intent of WP. And that information that may be collected and published about localities may be so unsourced as to make it as useless as it not ever having existed. What is the difference of lisitng and explaningthe local communities of a large r area in one article than estavblishing countless articles that really amount to nothing except WP announcing to the world that they exist?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello again. I suggest that you read the Five Pillars, which describes the foundational principles of Wikipedia. Please note that Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer, as described in the very first sentence. That is a somewhat archaic term for a comprehensive geographical directory, which ought to include every single verifiable current or past occupied place. And the Geographic Names Information System is the "gold standard" for geographic place names in the United States. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict):IP, the answer to that is simple. When Wikipedia was established, one of its goals was to serve as a gazetteer. Having an article on every community that is or ever was fits that goal. Another one of the foundation principles is WP:NOT. We are not here to promote anything. A virtually non-existent community has nothing to promote (and if an article on one contains material promoting some portion of the community, like a non-notable business, that should be removed). NOT is why we have much higher standards for articles on people and organizations than for places on a map. John from Idegon (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether you endorse it or not and the very manner that WP has developed show that it is not carved in stone including its founding principles otherwise it would have died long ago trapped within its own skin. What has to be recognized that even publications can be sources of politicization--those that have the power to include and champion for it can have its significance enhanced or made-up. If you are excluded from the process then so can be your significance in the world.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
IP user: you are right that the policies and practices of Wikipedia do vary a little over time. It works on consensus, and anybody may suggest changes and try to change the consensus. If you wish to do so, the place dedicated to this kind of activity is the Village pump, rather than the Teahouse. --ColinFine (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the input! I will not remove these articles, but I will try to find information to expand those articles. Cheers to all of you! Colman2000 (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That got a bit wordy there (understatement), but the take-home is that individual editors cannot remove articles. There are various processes for nominating an article for removal, but unlikely any would work for a location such as those itty-bitty towns. And some advice - you are working on articles about low pop Texas towns that get only a handful of visits per month (the articles, not the towns). Why not work on articles about larger communities? David notMD (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

How to start[edit]

I want to write for a person who us not there on Wikipedia, how do i create or startSuthar Vidhi (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone else can advise you on that but i assume that by your name you might be writing about Asia? I enjoy very much reading about non-European places since we get so much inundation about that part of the world to begin with.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I think Suthar Vidhi wants to write about Dr. Shailesh Thaker. I haven't properly investigated whether this person is notable in the Wikipedia sense but Google finds only self-published sources for me. There is guidance at WP:Biographies of living persons. Dbfirs 08:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Think? why speculate looking into something if that is not what she intends? Just who do you want to write about?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
We are not speculating. We have been told at User talk:Suthar Vidhi/sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:FIRST (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Dowery System in India[edit]

Why have you ReEdited the the wikipedia page "Dowery System in India" as it is particularly biased against the muslim Community at large as it shows the the Dowery System to be connected with ony Islam while the ground reality is completely different? (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess that you have some difficulty understanding English. The first two sentences of the paragraph which you were trying to edit (Dowry system in India#Religious factors) say "Dowry in India is not limited to any specific religion. It is widespread among Hindus and other religions.", so certainly not saying that it connected only with Islam. If you wish to find a Wikipedia in a language which you do understand, a list of Wikipedias is available at meta:List of Wikipedias. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I get the Canada Day page to reflect that fact that Canada Day will be on July 2nd in 2018?[edit]

Hi. I am very new to trying to edit Wikipedia, but I have enjoyed it very much as a reference for many years.

Someone edited my change, but then corrected it after I reached out to them on their talk page, after I had undone it? This was fixed, and now someone has edited it again! Also, I started to reference the Federal Holidays Act, and then realized that it had already been referenced, and now I have left a citation error on the page.

I am sorry to be a pest, but I have been fighting the legislation that has Canada Day fall on July 2nd if July 1st is a Sunday since 2012, and I would very much like Wikipedia to reflect the truth. Thank you. CanadaDayShouldBeOnJuly1st (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You can cite the legislation like this: <ref>{{cite web |url= |Holidays Act |publisher=[[Government of Canada]] |date=1985 |accessdate=2018-01-18}}</ref>
However it sounds like you aren't a disinterested third party with this topic, and potentially have a conflict of interest. Editors may rightly question whether you are capable of writing from the required neutral point of view. I would advise you to use the talk page and leave {{request edit}} tag there explaining what changes you want and why, then let a uninvolved editor review the request. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@CanadaDayShouldBeOnJuly1st: You do not need to get the article to reflect that because it's not true.
Canada Day will be celebrated on July 1 this year just as it is every year.
Because the date falls on a non-work day, governments have moved the day off to the following work day. It will not be observed on July 2. No public parades will happen that day. No publicly sponsored concerts. No publicly sponsored fireworks. Individuals or groups are free to celebrate it on any day.
This is exactly like when either Christmas or Boxing Day fall on a non-working day. Stop muddling things up and WP:FORUMSHOPping. Discuss your changes on the article's talk page as you were asked to do in your talk page, after your first incorrect introduction of this information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it okay that I have been accused of vandalism and conning this site?[edit]

I am sorry that people do not understand what I am saying, but Canada Day will be on July 2nd this year. I agree, all the festivities will be on July 1st, which is why it is a situation that needs to be changed. The only way this can happen is for people to acknowledge that the situation exists. The Retail Business Holidays Act for Ontario states that Canada Day is a statutory holiday and that all non-excluded stores must close. The stores will all be told to close on Monday, July 2nd. The retail workers will be paid regular wages while they miss out on celebrating with their family and friends. I am not being frivolous, and I am not wrong. Please stop changing this site to be incorrect. I will not undo or revert the page, I give up. I will not be pulled into a "war" with people who do not do the research, but feel free to accuse and criticize me. I expected better of Wikipedia, I don't know why. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FE2B:C3B:161E:A5D7:47B3 (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello IPv6 anonymous user and welcome back to the Teahouse.
Users who come to Wikipedia bringing incorrect ideas about how to behave and beating a drum for a particular thing to be done are more likely to be blocked than to successfully carry the day with their idea. Insisting that multiple other editors are "wrong" while being unwilling to do the work of convincing them of your point of view with proper evidence is considered rude. Either work in a collaborative way or face the consequences of being blocked or banned. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
User:CanadaDayShouldBeOnJuly1st (talk · contribs) asked the same quesions just a few days ago, was that you? Perhaps you forgot to log in? (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The correct link is to CanadaDayShouldBeOnJuly1st (talk · contribs). --David Biddulph (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Um, really? In the UK, if a statutory holiday falls on a weekend, there is normally a holiday the following Monday instead. So if New Year's Day is on a Sunday, Monday will be the New Year's Day holiday. New year is still Jan 1. Is that what's going on here? Guy (Help!) 08:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Canada day is, was, and will always be 1st July.
It happens that in 2018, that's a Sunday, so the Monday is the day-off-work.
That's all there is to it. (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ask for opinion about draft of the new article "User:CD17/sandbox/Water-filtered infrared-A"[edit]

Do you think the draft of the new article "User:CD17/sandbox/Water-filtered infrared-A" in this form appropriate for Wikipedia? How shall I improve the draft before sending it officially to a review? Thank you in advance for your help. CD17 (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Two comments:
  • The draft is about a range of wavelengths of electromagnetic wavelength. It would be nice to have a diagram that shows how it compares with other wavebands – I guess it falls within what is often called "infra-red"? But that's just my opinion.
  • More seriously: the use of this waveband, at least as described in the draft, is medical. An article on a medical subject should comply with WP:MEDRS, which discourages the use of primary sources. The draft relies almost entirely on research papers, which are primary sources. Also, the use of five or more references to support a single statement will suggest to cynical readers that the statement is in fact contentious. I strongly recommend removing as many as possible of the primary sources. A citation of a single good secondary source will be preferable to citations of multiple (12, in one case) primary sources. Maproom (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello @CD17:, and welcome to the Teahouse. 2 quick additional points: 1) With a few exceptions (like direct quotations for example), you shouldn't reference statements in the lead section. The lead section should only provide a succinct summary of the main text, thus such additional lead citations are generally seen as redundant (analogous information must be included and then sourced in the main text of course). You'll find more information about function and content of the lead section at MOS:LEAD. 2) Avoid "cite bombing" simple statements with multiple citations. You should verify such statements with the 1-2 best and most reliable source(s). Additional citations will not increase the statement's accuracy and often make verification more difficult instead. Notable exceptions are controversial or complex claims, where additional citations might be useful for the reader - but that's an editorial case by case judgement to make. Hope these general points help a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both for your help.

Following your advices, I have markedly reduced the citations (28 instead of 59), emphasizing on secondary sources; I have explained the neighboring to visible light; no references in the leading section. Do you have further suggestions for improving the draft of my article? Once again thank you in advance for your help. CD17 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Your draft says that wIRA is "in the range 780-1400 nm". Prove it. Show me a reliable source. Use that as a reference for that fact; if not, remove that fact. Repeat for the rest of the article. (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Talk to user:Doc James or one of the other specialists in WP:MEDRS. Primary sources to original papers are not really acceptable for medical articles, and a lot of the remaining sources fall into that category. Guy (Help!) 01:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
All the primary sources need to be removed. And than I will take another look.
The lack of EN language reviews is a bit of a concern. As is the fact that the concept revolves around a small group.
I am seeing nothing about this by the FDA. Do we have EU government sources that discuss it?
User also needs to disclose their connection to the subject in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Reply based on my version of the draft dated 20:28, 18 January 2018, on Water-filtered infrared-A:
The spectra of wIRA, of the Sun, and of two infrared radiators without water-filter are given in the two figures of the article with extensive text explanations (reachable by clicking on the figures from Wikimedia) by a physicist, Dr. Helmut Piazena, as published in a variety of original and review articles by Dr. Helmut Piazena (e.g. reference 28, review, Piazena/Kelleher 2010). Spectrum of wIRA is also given e.g. in “Vaupel P, Krüger W: Wärmetherapie mit wassergefilterter Infrarot-A-Strahlung. Grundlagen und Anwendungsmöglichkeiten. 1. Aufl. (= edition) Stuttgart: Hippokrates, 1992. 2. Aufl. 1995 (monograph about wIRA)” and e.g. in the review by Winkel et al. (reference 11).
References 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 28 are reviews, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 28 are reviews in English and listed in Medline and Pub Med Central. To my opinion references like 9 (Künzli et al.), published in Annals of Surgery, presenting a double-blinded clinical study with 400 patients, or like 17 (Hartel et al.), published in British Journal of Surgery, presenting a double-blinded clinical study with 111 patients (and with significant and relevant effects of wIRA, p<0.000001), or like 13 (Singer et al.), distinguished as best publication of the year of this journal, are worthwhile to be accepted as reliable sources. As well publications with Prof. Vaupel, like reference 14 (Notter et al.), have a high reputation.
The clinical use of wIRA is not as rare as might be perceived by commentators here at the Wikipedia Teahouse: in Germany i.a. approximately 28% (1045 out of 3767) of the dermatologists working outside a hospital had wIRA in use for treatment of patients (published data from 2012). In addition wIRA is in clinical use in other specialties, like surgery or physical therapy, in well known hospitals, by physicians outside hospitals and by patients at home. A variety of scientists and clinicians work scientifically with wIRA, most of them publishing original papers rather than reviews. CD17 (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

maintenance template[edit]

I would like to remove the maintenance template on the article Hal Blumenfeld but I am not sure if the article has been reviewed again since my edits. How can I confirm it has been reviewed again? Should I just remove the maintenance template? Thanks!Rortiz246 (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rortiz246, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no formal review process for the flagged problems at Hal Blumenfeld. As the link in the template Learn how and when to remove this template message explains, you can remove the template yourself if you think that you or someone else has fixed the problem. Though in this case, I would say that the problem appears unresolved; there are huge sections of unsourced material in this biography of a living person where citing a reliable source for everything that is stated would be the reasonable thing to do. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 19:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :The Hal Blumenfeld article still has two major unsourced sections, Biography and Awards, and several unsourced claims - I have added a few extra tags to highlight the most important points that need to be addressed. - Arjayay (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Note, I've removed the paragraphs that were tagged with inline citation needed templates. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 19:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"Blumenfeld was born in California" - prove it. Show me a reference to a reliable source, Otherwise, remove that.

Repeat. (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


How to make a page for a personality whose page is still not there on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname479 (talkcontribs) 20:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:FIRST, if you have further questions, ask here. (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


How to make a page for a personality whose page is still not there on Wikipedia? Noname479 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Noname479. You may want to start by reading through out tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. You should also please note that in the vast majority of cases, you cannot upload images to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that are taken from online, as you have done repeatedly, as this constitutes a copyright violation. GMGtalk 21:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

if the sources are reliable[edit]

Hello! :) I need an advice of more experienced editors whether next sources are enough reliable:



Best regards, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) ♥ —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Both are fine. (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :Hello, Lidiia Kondratieva welcome to our friendly Teahouse, and thank you for your question. Both the websites you have given links to look pretty reliable. But context is everything. They would be totally unreliable if you were trying to cite evidence that water has been found on the moon. One is written by a 'popular historian' in a local newspaper, but I would be quite happy using that as supporting evidence for most statements. It just depends what they are. The more contentious the claim, the more reliable the sources need to be to support it. I'm sorry if this answer seems a little vague, but I couldn't determine from your edit history which article you might be wanting to edit. If you have concerns, you could always place a note in an article's talk page, stating what information you'd like to add, and the citations you'd like to use to support it, and seek the views of other editors who have interest in working on that article. In summary: be bold and use them! Does this assist? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for help Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


It seems like Wikipedia is intending well with its interactive TWA, but to me, unless I am going nuts, feel undertones of deception, just as they are distracting you, to blindly follow you through jumping through hops of code writing, for whatever reason, to lower copyright issues, pursued by individuals discredited for creation of original information. Which I get it that's cool if we're all ready to become a collective, lets share completely not hold hidden agendas, I guess can someone give me a little hint, stuck in the coincidentally mischief of a perhaps misfortunate mind. Is there a question, not directly, but don't be overly critical of style, you get my drift, anyone want to help my nerves, and perhaps productive impact. -FerventtboundzFerventtboundz (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

What is "TWA"? (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:TWA. --NeilN talk to me 22:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Ferventtboundz. Doing The Wikipedia Adventure is a good way for some people to learn the basics of editing in small chunks, and in an interactive manner. But it's not for everyone. I'm really sorry, but I'm afraid I did not "get your drift", and am very unclear what you are trying to say. At the end of TWA there is a feedback opportunity to tell the team who run it what you thought. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
No Ferventtboundz, I'm afraid I don't get your drift. I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to say. --ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Fervent, never mind the establishment. Click 'edit' and go for it. Ignore the 'code' (there's really not that much of it...Help:Cheatsheet) but yeah... If you have any problems, ask for help. (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


Someone copied and pasted a Wikipedia article on their user talk. Is that allowed? can i get rid of it? (But i think they changed up the article on their talk page)Thegooduser talk 02:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

When you copy Wikipedia content within Wikipedia or to an outside site, attribution is required.
If someone else makes a copy without attribution you can supply the attribution for them, if you can discern where they copy came from. Just do a dummy edit (add a space?) and make the edit summary say something like content from Wikipedia page XXXXX was copied here - you can just do a wikilink or, if you know the specific revision, a link to the diff.
Generally, we don't remove content from another user's talk page unless they've asked for help or there's a more serious violation (such as a copyright violation that can't simply be patched up with an attribution).
It's generally a good idea to leave a message for the user on their talk page when you see this kind of problem. You can point them to the policy at WP:COPYWITHIN as a reminder of what's required. It would also not be out-of-line to post a message telling them that posting an entire article on their talk page is against talk page guidelines. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Bio text boxes[edit]


I'm looking for the format template for what I believe are called "infoboxes." This is the box that contains the factual bio of the person you're writing about - i.e. Name, Born, Occupations, Years Active, Website. I tried formatting it myself using the {{{ keys but I'm not sure I did it correctly. Is there a way to insert this, or am I missing a step or a button?


Octopus69Octopus69 (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. They are explained at WP:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Top tip: find an article that has an infobox that is similar to what you want, copy/paste it, and change the details. (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Octopus69: If you already know, what infobox you'd like to use, say a musical artist infobox, then go to that template page → {{Infobox musical artist}}, and you'll usually find examples of both shortened and expanded use, often with details explained about specific parameters. --CiaPan (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


What can I do to help?Eric Backer (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, welcome.
If you look in Category:All_pages_needing_cleanup, you will find about 20,000 articles that can quite easily be improved with plain editing.
If that's not the type of thing you want to do, then just say what is! (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) whoops, looks like someone else answered while I was typing...
I see that User:NeilN has put a welcome message on your talk page with a bunch of useful links. One of those links is to the community portal where you will find a list of editing tasks just asking to be done by relatively new editors such as yourself. Pick one that looks interesting to you and see if you can make the requested improvement. Take the tutorial or read the information at your first article or referencing for beginners to get some pointers on how to do things. Editing Wikipedia requires just a few technical skills, but your understanding of the goals of the project and the most important policies may take some time. But be BOLD and try things, make mistakes, ask questions. The Teahouse is here to help! — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Eric Backer. There are over 5,000,000 Wikipedia articles and many of them are in need of some kind of improvement, so there are lots of things you can do to help. Is there a particular subject matter or genre of article which you are interested in? If there is, then perhaps there's a WikiProject where you can find others who share your interests. Do you just want to be a sort of a free-spirit who moves from random article to random article looking for things to improve? If so, then may you'd like Wikipedia:Random page patrol. Do you want to be an Wiki-elf, Wiki-gnome, or Wiki-fairy? Then, maybe try Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors or Wikipedia:Task Center. There's so many ways to contribute; so, as long as you always try to be Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, you should never run out of things to do and run into trouble with others. If, however, you decide to become a Wiki-troll, a Wiki-vandal or even an Wiki-angry mastadon, then you'll probably find other editors to be much less helpful and understanding, and your sailing not so smooth. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

My company Wiki page entry keeps getting declined[edit]

Hi there. My company UiPath is a global company with 550 customers in Robotic Process Automation. We have tried for nearly a year to get a UiPath wiki page up. As you can imagine, we have inquires that ask why we do not have a page. I understand that accuracy and non-advertising style is critical. But, even a basic page with just our office and a few facts gets turn down. Can someone please help. Thanks, Bobby T patrick VA (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. The reasons for declining the submissions have been given in the pink boxes at the top of Draft:UiPath, and on your user talk page. In each case the words in blue are wikilinks to further information. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It is also worth looking at the deletion log (deleted 4 times) at UiPath, and in that context you also ought to look at WP:Articles for deletion/UiPath. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
T patrick VA, your company will never succeed in your attempt to "get a UiPath wiki page up". What you think you are attempting is not possible. A total attitude adjustment is required. No company "has" a "wiki page". We are not social media, we are an encyclopedia. We have "articles" about NOTABLE topics. Topics are notable when they have been written about in detail in multiple reliable (by our definition, not yours) sources, totally independent (again, our definition) of the subject. Your company's need for publicity is not our concern. If your company someday becomes notable, it may have an article on Wikipedia. But even then, it still isn't yours. It will never be here to serve your company's purposes. If one of your robots malfunctions and kills employees in a plant it's installed in, that will be in here. If there are financial irregularities, that will be in here. If a sales meeting gets weird and child prostitutes and kangaroos are involved, that will be in here. Your company will never have a page in Wikipedia, because we are not a web hosting, social media or a business directory. If there is ever an article here about your company, it isn't up to your company what is on it. John from Idegon (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are editing Wikipedia to promote "Robotic Process Automation", you will not have a happy time. You will get nasty warnings, accusations, and possibly blocked.

If you want to add to this encyclopaedia of everything - with referenced information about any topic at all, then you'll have lots of fun.

I could link you to hundreds of rules, but I doubt that would help.

Wikipedia is NOT for promotion; if the company is well-known (or becomes well-known), somebody will write about it. (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

glitch in a page I edit[edit]

I found a glitch on a page with a double underline underneath a word. When I click this they take me to an advertisement page. What is going on??? Songuitar333 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Songuitar333 and welcome to the Teahouse.
Unless you can provide a link to the page where you are seeing this phenomenon, we can't help. There used to be browser add-ins ("toolbars") that would add advertising links to content based on keywords but I thought modern browsers generally discouraged that kind of behavior. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:FAQ/Readers#Why do I see commercial ads at Wikipedia? We have five million articles and no way to check your example without knowing it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
See also this Help Desk thread: Wikipedia:Help desk#What's up with wikibuff? That is, ? It looks like wikipedia but redirects to advertisements. . Might be that instead. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Finding sources[edit]

Is there any Google Chrome add on or a gadget which can bring up only reliable sources in a Google search result. — Force Radical∞ ( TalkContribs ) 07:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello friend, you're in the wrong place.
This is for help editing Wikipedia - writing articles and stuff.
For general knowledge questions, you need the Wikipedia:Reference desk - specifically, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, where you will probably get good answers about your gadgets! Best, (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) whoops, Mr. 222 got an answer in there while I was still typing.
Hello Force Radical and welcome (back, I think) to the Teahouse.
I doubt that even Google's artificial intelligence bots could decide which sources would be considered reliable by WP standards. Reliability is not just once-and-for-all but has to be considered in terms of "reliable for what?" kinds of questions. It still requires human judgment and humans don't always agree on what's reliable, which is why some references end up being taken to WP:RSN. The world would be very different is such a tool existed. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Force Radical: I'm unaware of a Google Chrome add-on, but we do have Wikipedia Reference Search, which is also included in {{Find sources}}. In cases where the sources can be expected to be found in a language other than English, do a normal search. Sam Sailor 10:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

"Not found" link[edit]

Hello! What should be done if there is a link which no more exists? I would like to edit an article about Amina Figarova and there is the reference link #2 Can I delete it? ---Lidiia Kondratieva talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't deleted dead links, see WP:Link rot. If you can find an archive url that is preferable, but otherwise you can tag the link as a dead url. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Lidiia Kondratieva-Instead of deleting the link try replacing that link with [this link] (a working archived version) — Force Radical∞ ( TalkContribs ) 12:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear David Biddulph and Force Radical, Thank you for your help! ---Lidiia Kondratieva talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


What is dmy dates  ??? Noname479 (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Noname479: day, month, year so the request is that on that page dates are formatted in that order which is common for articles using British English as opposed to the US norm of month, day, year. Nthep (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Page on Wikipedia[edit]

To make a page for a personality first do we need to make a draft ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname479 (talkcontribs) 12:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC) <! --Autosigned by SineBot-->

We would prefer that you first make a draft (as you have already done) so that we can help you with the grammar. Wikipedia is especially strict about WP:Biographies of living persons, and you need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which the person has been written about in detail. Having a conflict of interest makes it especially difficult for you to write the article from a neutral point of view. You should forget what you know about the person, and just summarise what you find in the sources. Dbfirs 13:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Need help in re submitting[edit]

i need help resubmitting and adding photo to my artist wikipedia page. I'm new hereDevontaii (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello @DevonTaii:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing autobiographical articles on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged (see WP:AUTOBIO). Wikipedia is not a repository of personal artist "profiles", but an encyclopedic project based on independent reliable sources (newspaper articles, journals, expert websites, books, etc.). If a topic has been covered in multiple independent sources, uninvolved editors will eventually create an article about it. You'll find additional information about Wikipedia's purpose and guidelines in the "Welcome" message on your user talkpage, but feel free to ask here if you have any further questions. GermanJoe (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

New Article[edit]

I want to know about the new article creation, I recently created a draft article and now it is completed and I removed the AFC tab,but now how do I remove the Draft: from article name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadiqdawar (talkcontribs) 16:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sadiqdawar. I presume you are referring to Draft:Naqib Mehsud? If so, I advise against trying to put this onto Wikipedia. It sounds like a sad story, but this person and their death at the hands of the police is not something Wikipedia is likely to cover. The individual doesn't meet our guidelines for notability for people. Nor do we cover news stories (see WP:NOTNEWS). If there's an article about the police force, it's more suited to a brief mention in a 'controversy' section, in my view. If you do you still want to go ahead and try to submit it (which I advise against), as you're a very new user and aren't therefore what we call 'autoconfirmed', the right way would be to go through Articles for Creation. I've just put a template at the top of the article which you could use to do this, but you will have no success as the article stands unless you can demonstrate his Notability by Wikipedia's criteria. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Where can I find a living person biography template?[edit]

I have not submitted a new biography on Wikipedia for three years. Last time I did this was for the author Richard Pine in April 2014. This article was accepted after some help. To begin preparing that article I used a biography template on Wikipedia. I am now having some difficulty finding that very straightforward page. Can you help? Simon Baddeley (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sibadd, is it Template:Biography which did take me some time to find for some reason. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

OK I tried that but didn't scan far enough down the page. The term 'usage' confused me, but now I've got the list of headings I need. Thanks Simon Baddeley (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sibadd: Try entering {{subst:Biography}} – I did so in my sandbox and it created the full list of headings right there. :) –FlyingAce✈hello 21:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


How to remove AFC tab and that draft mark from the article? Noname479 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If this is about Draft:Sanjay Kukreja, I would advise against "removing the draft mark" and converting it to an article. If anyone does that while it's in its present state, it is very likely to be deleted, as providing no evidence that its subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this page beind made in a Sandbox page about Electronic Entertainment Expo ready as an official page on Wikipedia?[edit]

I am working on the page for Electronic Entertainment Expo 2018 in a Sandbox page at I have uploaded the page twice (once by taking the sandbox pages code and putting in that page, and the other time by removing a redirect someone gave the page) before as an official page, thinking it was ready for a page on Wikipedia, but it was marked Wikipedia:Too soon both times not long after I had made the page or removed it's redirect. That was because little was confirmed about E3 2018, it's presenters, press conferences and games being presented both of those times. Since then Microsoft's Executive Vice President of Gaming Phil Spencer confirmed there having a press conference during Major Nelsons Pdocast, and a news article with info from sources they wouldn't name, says CD Projekt will be showing off a trailer ahd have a playable demo of there game Cyberpunk 2077. Does anyone now think the page is ready to move from a Sandbox page to the page Electronic Entertainment Expo 2018, or is the information to much speculation and rumor, or the page being moved from a sandbox page still to soon for much information to be confirmed? If so, I will wait a bit and add to it as information is confirmed, and if not, I'll move it from a sandbox page. I am asking because I don't want to remove the redirect and add the stuff from my Sandbox page if it's to much specualtion or still Wikipedia:Too soon Greshthegreat (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Greshthegreat. Have several people who have no connection with the event or its promoters chosen to write in depth about it, and been published in reliable sources? (This excludes anything published by the event or its promoters, and anything based on an interview or press release from those people). If the answer is yes, then an article can be written, based almost 100% on what those independent commentators have said about it. If the answer is no, then Wikipedia is simply not interested in the subject at present, and no article will be accepted however it is written. Remember that Wikipedia has very little interest in what a subject says about itself (or what people associated with it say about it), and no interest at all in how a subject wishes to be presented. --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

How to reopen an article-for-deletion discussion[edit]

I would like to reopen an article-for-deletion discussion. The article was about a young politician Conor Lamb who is running for office in an important upcoming election. Since the first discussion, there has been significant coverage of Lamb in the media. Politico, NYTIMES and Washington Post have all featured a story about him. However, he has never held office. Unlike his opponent. This has led to the highly unsatisfactory situation that there is an article about this unique election with links to all Republican candidates but the Conor Lamb page is continually deleted (I tried to reinstate it). I am also a bit suspicious of the motives of some of the people involved with editing. In any case, it is now clear that Conor Lamb would pass any reasonable appraisal of his notability.

Just one example:

Here the link to the special election. It seems to me that if this election is so insignificant, this page too should be deleted. If not, both candidates are deserving of an article about them.,_2018#Democratic_convention

Quigley david (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Quigley david: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have some experience in political-related articles, and I can tell you that the problem you have with Conor Lamb is that the notability guidelines for politicians (WP:POLITICIAN) spell out clearly that merely running for a political office almost always does not make someone notable enough for an article. There are some exceptions to this (Christine O'Donnell is a notable one) but that is the general rule. The coverage of Mr. Lamb is all related to the fact that he is running for office(and much of it is likely intended to promote him as a candidate). If he wasn't running, there likely would not be any coverage and he would not be notable. That said, the exceptions that exist(such as O'Donnell) make it in because the coverage of the person rises to meet the general notability guideline; they have in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. I don't know if that is true of Mr. Lamb or not.
To get to your question, you could visit Deletion Review and make a proper request there, but I would urge you to read the instructions there carefully. The one opening I think you would have is to argue the third criterion listed there, "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". I think that the only way you would succeed is if you had sources only tangentially related to his seeking public office(or not at all) indicating how he is notable, such as in his legal career. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: Thank you for your help! Quigley david (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Nuclear Siren False Alarm[edit]

I am not an expert on notability but I do know that there are some strange requirements in some cases so forgive me for being lazy but does this event qualify as notable? The Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant in SouthWestern Wake County, NC, USA had its siren system go off earlier today. This is the system that is supposed to notify residents if there is an emergency pertaining to the power plant. I have found a few news articles already for this and their urls are as follows. Thanks, Alex the Nerd (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alex the Nerd: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I suspect that this alarm would warrant some sort of brief mention in the article about the plant, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. I would suggest visiting the talk page for that article, Talk:Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, and post what you think should be in the article there(especially if you don't feel comfortable adding it yourself). 331dot (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

31 hour blocks?[edit]

Why do admins frequently choose to apply 31 hour blocks? ([1] Although the number 31 has many interesting properties, it seems unusual that so many admins have chosen 31 hours as their preferred duration for a short term block. Billhpike (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting question! On the block page, there is a dropdown menu of standard times and 31 hours is one of them (between 24 and 36). The admin's guide also mentions that "31 hours is the standard duration for most blocks" but doesn't say why. But searching, I found that "why 31 hours?" gets asked quite frequently. The thinking is that if a vandal is blocked for 24 or 48 hours, they will simply come back at the same time the next day (or the day after), whilst adding a few more hours might disrupt their schedule and cause them to lose interest. As for why it's 31 hours and not a round number, it seems to date back to one particular admin's preference for prime numbers, which became a tradition and was enshrined in the software. – Joe (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Billhpike:. – Joe (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I suspect quite a few of us were looking forward to seeing that answer. Thanks, Joe. My favourite in that list is "18:48, 19 January 2018 Favonian blocked ***.***.**.* with an expiry time of 3 years, 6 hours, 32 minutes and 24 seconds". That's one lover of interesting numbers! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I think I recall an administrator saying that 31 hours was based partly on the idea that vandals were often students, and that a 31-hour block would cover that school day and the next school day, and that the 31-hour block was primarily intended for vandals (rather than other sorts who need blocking such as edit-warriors and flamers). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I also think that I recall seeing someone blocked until 2038, but that is sort of techie black humor for blocking them until the end of the world, because that is the Unix doomsday until they expand the size of the clock. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there a general format available to create my first wikipedia article?[edit]

I have never created a Wikipedia article before and I am not quite sure how the html coding works. Is there a general template for creating a page?Builder284 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Builder284, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can read about how it works here: Help:Wikitext. There is no universal format however. Different kinds of topics mandate different kinds of layouts. You can have confidence in someone fixing it for you if you mess something up. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Builder284: Hello. I would caution you that article creation is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. New users who dive right in to article creation often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work that they spend hours on is mercilessly edited by others and even deleted. I don't want you to end up disappointed. New users are much more successful at creating articles when they first take some time to edit existing articles in areas that interest them first, which helps them to learn how Wikipedia works and what is looked for in article content. If you still wish to attempt to create an article, I would suggest first reading Your First Article to learn about the process, and then going to Articles for Creation to write and submit a draft for an independent review and feedback before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way you can learn before the draft is posted instead of afterwards where reviewers and editors will be much more critical. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


To make an article notable how many references should be made ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname479 (talkcontribs) 20:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Noname479: Hello. It isn't the number of references that make something notable, it is the information within the references. Quality references are far better than the quantity of references. Please review the page on notability; something is notable if it receives in depth coverage in independent reliable sources(sources not written by or affiliated with the subject). 331dot (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :Hello, Noname479 - welcome to the Teahouse. You ask a good question, which 331dot has answered more succinctly than I have! You need to provide enough independent reliable references to demonstrate the subject has been covered in depth and meets our Notability criteria. It's virtually impossible to put an actual number on it for you because sources vary. A single detailed obituary in a reputable national newspaper, or a single entry for a species on the International Plant Names Index or WoRMS database would probably be enough in some cases, whereas a software product might need at least three or four detailed references to help establish it meets WP:NSOFT. An obscure actor or the CEO of a company would still need good, in-depth sources. Sometimes we see twenty or more references to a company, all from insider sources or company press releases - and still the article gets deleted for failing notability. It's all very subjective - so submitting an article via Articles for creation gives you feedback before anything you might write goes live. My apologies for not being able to give you a numeric answer. I hope this helps a bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Noname479. Adding to the useful answers above, please be aware that it is the specific topic which either is or is not notable, not the Wikipedia article. It is the responsibility of an editor who writes an article to show that the topic is notable, by providing references to reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage to that topic. Notable topics are still notable even if no Wikipedia article has yet been written on that topic. For example, most editors agree that top ten hit songs, Olympic athletes, and state and provincial legislators are all notable topics. But we lack thousands of articles about early 20th century examples of these types of topics, because no one has yet written these articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirming template supports row and col scopes per MOS:ACCESS[edit]


I was asked in my featured list candidate entry List of Tau Kappa Epsilon brothers to confirm that the template being used, which is a subtemplate of template:mem, supports row and col scopes per MOS:ACCESS. How would I go about doing this? I have no idea where to start...

Thanks, Jmnbqb (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jmnbqb. Yes it does. Looking at the HTML code that is generated for the first table in the article, the one with the single line for presidents, shows that the column headers use scope:
<th scope="col" style="width:20%; vertical-align:top;">Name</th>
Rows don't have labels in these tables. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks StarryGrandma. For future reference, where did you access the HTML code for the template? Jmnbqb (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Jmnbqb}, most browsers let you see the source code for the page you are on. On Firefox the menu has a "Web Developer" section with "Page Source". For Internet Explorer click "View" then "Source". In both browsers Ctrl-U will do the same thing. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about templates[edit]

Hi, I largely copied and modified {{Company-list table start}} to make a template, and I am planning to largely copy and modify the documentation as well. Should I add some kind of attribution, like we would for text copied from another article?Seraphim System (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your suggested action is exactly what I would recommend, and fits in with the guidance given here: WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Not only would it fulfil the obligation to acknowledge those who wrote the template/documentation, but it would also provide a clear route back to where your own template documentation originated from in case of query or even making global updates (eg the recent 'well-advertised' alteration of Save changes->Publish changes). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


Can i write what i like to do outside of Wikipedia on my userpage? Thegooduser talk 02:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Thegooduser and welcome back to the Teahouse. Stay within the talk page guidelines and you can write pretty much whatever you please on your userpage. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I would like to add, for anyone reading this and not just Thegooduser, that it's never a good idea for any editor to include information that might accidentally identify them, show images of family members, or include their email addresses etc. Nobody is prevented from doing any so, but always consider the implications carefully first. (Contact by email can be enabled in one's Preferences, so it's safer not to put it on a user page). Wikipedia recognises it has many brilliant editors who are not yet legally adult, and so offers this additional advice with their best interests at heart:
Hope this is of relevance. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: See Wikipedia:User pages for the guideline. You can write about yourself but not "Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia." PrimeHunter (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


Can I use the same reference at places of article since it has all the information??

Noname479 (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello Noname479. Yes, you may use one reference at many different places throughout an article. However, you only need to enter the full reference just once. You then give that reference a name which you then call again and again in shortened form throughout the document. It makes life so much easier. You can find how to do this here: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations.
It's worth mentioning that if you normally only use VisualEditor to create content, it doesn't at the moment let you add your own helpful ref names. (It is a flaw currently being addressed) You might therefore wish to switch Editors and add a name of your own choosing by that route. Otherwise you're stuck with references being just numbered sequentially, in the format 0:, 1:, 2:, etc., if I remember correctly.
I should also add that if you want to reference one book at different pages each time, there is an easy way to do this too. You follow exactly the same procedure above, but you obviously can't enter a page number if you're going to refer to different pages at different places in your article. This is where Template:Refpage comes in handy. Assuming you want to refer to page 25 in one place and page 39 of the same book elsewhere, just add: {{rp|25}} immediately after the first use of the reference (don't insert any spaces between them). On the next occasion you use that reference, add {{rp|39}} after it. This will display as: [1]:25, showing it is page 25 of reference 1 and then as [1]:39 later on. Does this help?
And, by the way, has anyone mentioned that your signature in bright yellow is impossible to read against Wikipedia's white background? Perhaps I could advise you to consider changing this to something that those with visual difficulties (i.e. old fogeys like me!) can see easily. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk page archiving[edit]

Hi, I am this is not the right place to come for help of my question; however, I am not sure where to go to seek for assistance, please let me know who could hep me on the following: I tried to archive my user talk page yesterday and I only added in the "Archive boxes" script but not the managed to do the 3 months automated archive script (lowercase sigmabot III) as I could not make it work. I just found out today that part of my talk page message (earlier part) was missing and it is not in my archive box. So what should I do and is anyone could help to restoring the message back and set it up for the archive script for me? Kindly point me to the right direction. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Is some content missing at User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archives/ 1? Dbfirs 15:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC
@Dbfirs:, Yes, this is the content. Thank you. Just wonder, how to put them in the archive box, if you know, could you pleas let me know how or if not, can someone help instead? CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on archive scripts, so perhaps someone else can advise you? Dbfirs 20:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Your main problem was that you had the wrong username in the archive config. I corrected it in this edit. That has created User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 1. Your previous data was in User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archives/ 1 so I've copied it from there into User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 1 which is accessible from your archive box. You should be able to request deletion of User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archives/ 1 by tagging it with {{Db-userreq}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Dbfirs: and @David Biddulph:, Thank you both of you for helping. Appreciate it. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Re reference to ? in article re Eileen Myles[edit]

In the article, "they" is used throughout for what was written, what organization was started, where "they" moved to.... Who are "they"? Am I missing something? Shouldn't it be "she" instead of they? Thank you, Lynne O'Brophy73.21.38.196 (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

See MOS:GENDERID. Apparently, the subject prefers the "singular they", and some sources use this pronoun. The usage should be briefly explained in the article. Dbfirs 15:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I've added a note to the top of Eileen Myles explaining this. (I was surprised that I couldn't find a template for the note). --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I really think that should go as an invisible note within the article using <!-- Comment -->, or on its talk page, ColinFine. It now badly messes up how the page looks and especially how it displays with Hovercards. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I've changed a couple of "theys" in the lead to reduce the confusion of readers unfamiliar with the convention. Dbfirs 21:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the note could be in running text, or a footnote, at the first instance of "they"? Dbfirs 00:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Editor font size[edit]

The font size for the editor was changed recently. For me, the new font size is too small.

How can I increase the font size in the editor? (I did not find a preference to restore the prior size.)  BetterMath (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The font size for the source editor looks the same to me. I keep away from the visual editor.
Have you tried hitting ctrl-+ while using the editor? On most browsers, that will enlarge everthing. Maproom (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I hadn't noticed any change of font size either, but then I edit in different browsers across at least four devices, which makes everything always seem different. At risk of 'teaching grandma to suck eggs', I presume you've already experimented with Ctrl+minus /Ctrl+plus in any browser, or experimented with Firefox's Language & Appearance settings, where you can set a minimum font size, or from the main menu select 'zoom text only' - which leaves images the same size? It sounds like you've already tried different skins in Preferences and not found that helpful. Hopefully others might be able to offer other alternatives to enhance viewings if these don't work. (I'd be interested to learn if any changes have actually been implemented, and why). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Have a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Editor font size, you might have the same issue. Nthep (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Nthep. Following the links given there leads to this page which does appear to offer a solution to anyone wanting to define their own font size via their stylesheet. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That works! Big thanks to Nthep and Nick Moyes for your very kind help....  BetterMath (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


Someone just created an article. Im not sure if it's notable. Can someone please help to see if it is notable?Thegooduser talk 22:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Not without you telling us which article. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: its called Lynn Zelevansky Thegooduser talk 22:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That article has no references, and therefore does nothing to establish that its subject is notable. (It's the subject that can be notable, not the article. If the subject is notable and the article establishes this by citing suitable sources, then the article will be accepted for Wikipedia.) Maproom (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
While an article is being built it will be missing things, have empty sections that the creator is planning to fill soon and so on. So it's a good idea to wait awhile and see what develops. Especially if you can see from the edit history that an editor is making changes every few minutes. Of course, if you see that they need help it's fine to offer assistance. Gab4gab (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

When referencing a journal article that's available on, is it okay to link instead to a free source?[edit]

There's a reference to an article in an academic journal (actually a "letter"), and the link provided goes to, where the article may be downloaded for a fee. The same article is available at (University of New Orleans) without charge. Is there any reason not to change the reference to link to the free article? Fabrickator (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Fabrickator - I've done the same thing myself, on occasion, where I've referenced an article I initially found on JSTOR but it has been uploaded in a more accessible version elsewhere (for example on a university website or on As long as you keep the original publication information in-tact (i.e. journal article, volume, etc.) and simply change the URL, I can't imagine any situation in which that's an issue, assuming I'm reading this question correctly. Chetsford (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Tips for my first article[edit]

In the next week or so, I'd like to prepare to write my first article on Wikipedia. I've read a fair amount of information on how to go about this, but what advice would you all give me? MirzaTheGreatest (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@MirzaTheGreatest: Hello. I would suggest using Articles for Creation to draft an article which you can then submit for a review and feedback from another editor; this way you can find out any issues before the article is placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards(where people will be more critical). 331dot (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: Sounds great, thank you! It says it will take around two months to be published, is that right? Thank you so much for your help. I feel I'm picking up Wikipedia pretty quickly but just have some questions. MirzaTheGreatest (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, MirzaTheGreatest. I assume you've read your first article? There's a lot of useful information there. To address your question: in one sense, everything you write, anywhere on Wikipedia, is immediately "published", in the sense that it is visible to anybody - I take it that that was WMF's idea in the recent change from "Save changes" to "Publish changes". But user pages, draft pages etc are not indexed, so they won't tend to be found by ordinary searches: in that sense, only articles in the main space are "published". How long you take developing your draft before submitting it for review is up to you. Once you submit it for review (if you choose to), it may well take a couple of months before somebody reviews it, but that is an estimate: since all editing in Wikipedia is voluntary, it depends on who is available to review it, and who is interested in doing so. And of course, when somebody does review a draft, they may or may not accept it right away. --ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Person is unclear on their own facts - how to handle?[edit]

What is the best way to handle a person being unclear about their own facts/stories when writing their article? For example (this is in fact the exact issue in the article I'm thinking of), if a person changes the spelling of their name by changing a letter. They've been asked about it more than once, and have given 2 answers: sometimes they say it was changed because it made their name easier to pronounce, and sometimes they say that they changed it because it looked better with the new spelling. I can find reliable sources (published articles or video of the person themselves saying it) for both of these explanations. Should the sentence be phrased something like "He was originally called (name) but changed the C to a K before releasing his first album. He is unclear on his reasons for this; when asked he has said both that he was tired of his name being mispronounced and that he thought the K looked better on paper (insert cites here)"

Is there a general policy on how to write & cite people being confused, cagey, or outright dishonest about their own lives? I can think of many cases where I've heard a notable person, whether as a deliberate untruth, simply forgetting, or mixing up stories, tell the same story or explanation of their life in two different ways on two different occasions.

Peeteygirl (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Peeteygirl and welcome to the Teahouse.
Overriding anything the subject has to say about their name is the WP:COMMONNAME policy of using the name that reliable sources use for the subject. If the sources are consistent and don't mention any variations, then you don't need to address the issue at all. If they are inconsistent and give an explanation for the inconsistency, that's what we report. If there's no good explanation for the inconsistency, we simply report the alternate names without trying to resolve the inconsistency. It may seem disrepectful, but get give relatively little weight to what the subject has to say about such things, in part because of the reasons you bring up. Readers who are intrigued about the name variations should be able to satisfy their curiousity by following the citations you give, but do not necessarily get to have their curiosity completely slaked by what you write - that sort of issue is seldom noteworthy enough for detailed coverage in an encyclopedia article. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Stage names/Pen names/Aliases?[edit]

Hello there. I was wondering what your protocol is for a stage name as opposed to using my real name. I have all my art, music and poetry copyrighted as Aralia Fresia and yet that name was rejected as a Wikipedia page. Thank you. Looking forward to hearing back from you about this. (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Aralia Fresia and welcome to the Teahouse.
I didn't catch your attempt at creating a page, but the name itself does not seem to be a reason for declining a draft. We have policies, starting with WP:NICKNAME, that cover how we deal with the various names or aliases a person may have or use over the course of their life and career. When you created a page about yourself, you are engaged in what we call conflict-of-interest editing, for which there are also recommendations. You should also be aware of the issues of autobiographies on WP. The most common reason for declining these sorts of drafts is that the submission has not adequately demonstrated the notability in the particular sense that WP uses for that word via independent, reliable sources. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The article was deleted and protected against re-creation. Your last edit summary there was Aralia Fresia will not go away until people acknowledge that she is the co-lyricist for Sting's song "I Can't Stop Thinking About You". I would say you need to forget about using Wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs™. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • If you are Aralia Fresia and were the one who initially created the page, you were blocked from editing and by posting here are evading your block; you need to properly request to be unblocked per the instructions on your original user page, User talk:Aralia Fresia; but as has been said, you don't seem interested in building this encyclopedia so you should pursue your grievances elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
<<<< re: To Whom This May Concern: Thank you for replying. You invited me to the "Teahouse" and I just have one more question if you don't mind. Why is it that no one seems to account for the fact that the reason why I can't provide you with the links you are asking for, is because you are either too insensitive to appreciate them, and because I desire to respect Sting's privacy. Only the people who deserve to know these things should be able to figure it out themselves, if they are curious enough. I can't tell you how much time I've spent hunting them down circumstantial evidence compiled with personal testimonies under the surface of this case. I know for a fact that Sting is shy and very emotional about this issue and its very difficult for him to talk about. Not only that, there are personal issues I have surrounding my name. I would appreciate a little bit more sensitivity in what you are actually dealing with. What would you do if it happened to you? If you wrote some lyrics and everyone said, "you are crazy, you didn't write them!" If you can't figure out how to google "Aralia Fresia" and care to find evidence of what I am EXPLICITLY stating is the problem, then maybe the cause is hopeless, but I must assert my right to discuss this matter. Furthermore, because of how rudely I have been treated here, why should I trust you with the evidence I do have? On a talk page, such as this one, its to DISCUSS things, that have been controversial understandably, but I feel there is very little respect in the dialogue I'm receiving. -- Lara Nicole Daskivich (Aralia Fresia) re: 331dot — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I took your suggestion and tried Google, but, for me, it brings up only webpages created by you. We want to treat you fairly, but Wikipedia is not the place for your campaign, and other editors are not being rude when they point out that we have rules that all editors should follow. Best wishes for your recognition campaign, but please don't use Wikipedia for it. We don't use personal testimonies and circumstantial evidence until they are reported in WP:Reliable sources. Dbfirs 13:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I think this essay covers your question well: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Help with speedy deletion[edit]

Hello, I did my first article ( a couple of months ago with the help of Dodger67 from Teahouse. Now, someone tagged my article for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement. But in my opinion, there is no copyright infringement. The article is a technical article about a well know welding process. Please can you help me? THX JP1308 (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, JP1308, and welcome to the Teahouse. I checked and got a 0.0% match of the article against the page, so no copy was copied across them. I've removed the speedy deletion tag and asked the person who tagged it to explain if their concern persists. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: I'm not sure how you checked, a quick copy/search shows it's copied from [2] and seems to be a product. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is the report, Doug Weller. Can you point out some phrases that are in both because I've obviously missed any. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I might add that, whilst Earwig's Copyvio tool doesn't show an issue to me (nor on the link Finnusertop has just given to suggest why he thinks it isn't a copyvio either), I have found there is some very close paraphrasing in the second paragraph of the article, perhaps not quite to WP:G12 level. Very weirdly, a Google search seems to return a perfect match of text from that 2nd paragrpah to the TIP TIG website, but I cannot then find the text on the page it links to - just the close paraphrasing. The editor might like to address this anyway and read: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: There is something weird, as a Google search using "site:" also shows the identical text. I can see that here the website says:
"The vibratory effect is created by a linear forward and backward mechanical motion created by the custom wire feeder system and the hotwire current is created by a secondary power source within the TIP TIG welding machine." while the article says:
"The vibration comes from a linear forward and backward motion applied mechanically using a custom wire feeder system. A secondary power, on the other hand, creates the hot wire current."
It's tweaked but still a copyright violation. Some of the original wording was copied from Gas tungsten arc welding and the Tig Tig company website. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
One other question I have as I don't edit this sort of article, it's also a trademark and the name of a company, does that need a mention? Doug Weller talk 13:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller and JP1308: I see the user made this declaration: " I work for the AWS and the inventor/owner of this welding process allowed us to use every kind of content/pictures/videos about TIP TIG"- so at a minimum, JP1308, you need to declare your COI on the talk page to avoid breaching our terms of use. You can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:JP1308, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Uw-paid2|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I do agree that the very close paraphrasing is equivalent to copyright infringement and that " Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same things". If the editor (JP1308) has any nouse, they'd change that right away, as it ought to be easy to reword, even with such a technical description. (I now see a fair few notices on the editors talk page to guide them through the issues to address.) I've not looked at the merits of the article as though it were proposed for deletion, but in my view the questionner was justified in coming to the Teahouse to ask why it was flagged for speedy deletion under WP:G12. I'm not convinced the whole article shows "unambiguous copyright infringement", as per that CSD rationale, though it might be sailing pretty close to the wind on that one. Whether it meets WP:N, or should have got through WP:AFC in the first place is another matter entirely, which we don't need to address here. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thanks. I've left him a note about paid editing and copyright release. I see that the editor who added the tag says that the website has changed since the tag was added, which would explain why Google was still finding the exact text when searched, that's typically what happens, there's a delay. So in fact it probably was copy and paste, not close paraphrase, which agrees with my finding of copy and paste in the first version.Doug Weller talk 15:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What is sandbox?[edit]

Hi Teahouse,

I am a new Wikipedia user. I don't what is sandbox? Can you tell me what is this? Thank You Sidon quintin (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)