Open main menu
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Most recent archives
962, 963, 964, 965, 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 977, 978, 979, 980, 981

(Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.)

First article submitted for reviewEdit

Hello I've just submitted my first article for review. It looks like getting a decision may take a while and I would like to write other articles while the first one is being considered. How can I free up my sandbox so I can write a draft for another entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EctopicOnSchedule (talkcontribs) 20:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

EctopicOnSchedule Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You could create another sandbox, say User:EctopicOnSchedule/sandbox2. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@EctopicOnSchedule: Just so you know, there's no obligation to have your artivle reviewed. If you believe the article is suitable for the Wikipedia, you can move it directly to mainspace. Review is optional Gumlau (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gumlau: I had no idea that's possible, thank you! I have tried to move the page from 'Draft' to 'Wikipedia' through moving a page and I get a message saying 'You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: "Draft:Dumitru Bâșcu" cannot be moved to "Wikipedia:Dumitru Bâșcu", because the title "Wikipedia:Dumitru Bâșcu" is on the title blacklist. If you feel that this move is valid, please consider requesting the move first.' Any ideas why this title would be on the blacklist and how to move it to the mainspace? --EctopicOnSchedule (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you that worked! EctopicOnSchedule — Preceding unsigned comment added by EctopicOnSchedule (talkcontribs) 20:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello one of the pictures I posted has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it isn't my work. This is a photo I took myself of a self-portrait of a painter who died in 1983. I have permission from the owner of the painting (the painter's heir) to take the picture and upload the file to Wikipedia but going through the OTRS process seems to take very long. Is there a way that I can upload pictures I took myself without licensing? I understand that licensing isn't needed if the pictures have been previously published on a personal web page such as Flickr. Please help! EctopicOnSchedule —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Strange emoji things in signaturesEdit

Lately I've noticed small, colored icons appearing in users' signatures. Example:|😹|✝️|. Is this a feature of Wikipedia? Are they encouraged? Does WP have a way of constraining their use, or, at least, preventing their display to certain users? Thanks, Quisqualis (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Quisqualis. All signatures need to comply with WP:SIG. Editors can customize their signatures as long as they do so per WP:CUSTOMSIG. There's nothing specifically mentioned about icons/emojies per se and I've seen then used quite a bit; so, they're probably OK. One thing to keep in mind though is that not everyone accesses Wikipedia using the same type of device, so what might seem fine on a lap top computer, might not work so well on a smart phone, etc. I'm not sure how icons/emojies affect accessibility. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Quisqualis: Call me old-fashioned, but I personally find them extremely annoying, irrelevant and intrusive. Please don't be tempted to move to the dark side. There are enough people over there already, and these signatures look 💩! Regards. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Was also not a fan of them till a wikiconference in Montreal were it was talked about like WP:Last in they stand out and people generally take note..--Moxy 🍁 01:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't follow this rule myself but you generally find that editors and admins who have been here the longest, have the simplest signatures, usually standard font, no frills. I like a little style but if you want to imitate the long-timers, you'll have a simple signature. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Heh, those look like the ones from my signature. I've tried to remove the color since some find it a nuisance; sorry for the bother. From an accessibility perspective, they're just plain-text Unicode characters, so they should be fairly benign; I grant that being distracting is a valid accessibility concern, though.
I've tried to change my signature to monochrome. I don't know if all computers/browsers respect the method I changed it with (variation selectors: see below if curious). I guess if it still shows up colored for anyone I can just delete them. Hopefully this signature's not an irritant now! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹︎|✝|John 15:12|☮|🍂︎|T/C 06:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Technical details and tips: The colors are actually colored glyphs in a typeface you have installed in your computer, or that is provided by your Web browser. A character that defaults to being colored can be requested to be monochrome by placing the character U+FE0E VARIATION SELECTOR-15 after it. Color for a monochrome-default one can be requested by placing U+FE0F VARIATION SELECTOR-16 after it, but not all characters support color. If you want to make this type of character monochrome everywhere, you could perhaps give a monochrome typeface including them higher priority than the colored ones (this can generally be accomplished by adjusting your fontconfig preferences in GNU/Linux; I'm not sure about other operating systems), or just uninstall the colored one(s) for the extreme solution. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹︎|✝|John 15:12|☮|🍂︎|T/C 06:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: To me, your signature looks OK, and I can still see from its highlighting you're an adminstrator - unlike Lourdes whose admin status is not visible from their signature, which I find misleading (especially after what I seem to remember happening after their RFA.) Goldenshimmer's is pointless as far as I perceive it. Pretty, but totally not needed, and confusing to other editors. There - I told you I was old-fashioned! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Uhm, what is this "highlighting" you talk of that shows an admin's admin status? —Rutilant (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Rutilant: Sorry, I wasn't very clear. There are a handful of optional, user-installed scripts available for highlighting different users. I have installed User:Amalthea/userhighlighter.js which highlights every admin signature in bright blue (unless they've forced some background colour of their own which overrides it, as I think Lourdes and some others have done - there's no rule against it, I might add). I also have User:PleaseStand/highlight-comments.js installed which highlights parts of my own contributions in yellow, which makes them easy to find amongst all the others) You can find a huge list of other user-created scripts which you can try out at Wikipedia:User scripts/List. I often forget that as soon as one changes one's own scripts and user preferences it can make all of ones own Wikipedia pages appear completely different from how others see and use them. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Nick, your statement: "...unlike Lourdes whose admin status is not visible from their signature, which I find misleading (especially after what I seem to remember happening after their RFA.)" is spot on. My signature is like this because I want to mislead people, especially after what happened post my RfA. I'm pleased you've summarised it well. Thank you. Lourdes 14:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC) (Check the new blue color in my signature. I think it rocks. What do you think? Oh, I already have the answer. MISLEADING!)
LOL! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes: You mentioned my signature was confusing — does removing the color resolve that, or are there other issues? (Is it just too long? "T/C" abbreviations confusing?) I appreciate hearing your feedback if it's still a bother. (I'm leaning towards changing it to just "—{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|talk/contribs"; maybe that's better...) Thanks! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹︎|✝|John 15:12|☮|🍂︎|T/C 02:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Goldenshimmer: Well, as colourful as it is, I don't find it helpful. All this stuff is unclickable, and irrelevant to a signature: "(they/their)|😹︎|✝|John 15:12|☮|🍂︎|" So, seeing as how you asked, my view is that your religious views, and whatever the other stuff refers to, are best left for your userpage. The hyperlinked T/C bit works OK for me. But the view of this particular grumpy traditionalist is that clever emojis and other graphics have no place whatsoever in a signature, which should be designed to facilitate communication, not obfuscation. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes: Thank you for your feedback! My goal with that stuff was to make it seem more "human" and inviting by including some personality, but since it distracts people, then it hurts communication rather than helps... I've made some changes, so hopefully it's fixed now. (I left the "(they/their)" since I don't want people to have to click through to my userpage to know how to refer to me, so it seems practically useful for a signature.) Thanks again! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|TalkContributions 02:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
This is fascinating; I had no idea. I must be a very old editor (2005, tho not a heavy contributor); I still sign with my Real Name, which is also my login! Maybe I should add a little colour to my life? Thanks @Quisqualis for raising the issue. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Dead Link Need HelpEdit

Hi, I fixed a dead link:

after putting in the correct url, should I remove the dead link part: [permanent dead link]

Or should I leave that for the moderator to check the work and they'll remove that part?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpful Hippopotamus (talkcontribs) 14:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Helpful Hippopotamus, welcome to the Teahouse! There are no moderators specifically checking everyone else's work. Editors are encouraged to be BOLD here. You do what you think will improve the encyclopedia. If someone thinks it makes it worse instead, they'll undo your work and then you talk it out with them and settle on an improvement that the whole community can get on board with. Having said that, rest assured, one of your fellow editors has the page on their watchlist, more likely than not, and they are going to check what you did.
Back to the matter at hand, make sure you've replaced that link with a link that's both live and verifies the exact same things that the previous link was cited for, then you must remove that warning as well, since that was exactly why it was placed there-- so someone sees it and fixes it. Once you've fixed it, it would be saying there's a problem where there isn't. What good is that going to do anybody  ? Important: When you are saving an edit, you get a window that asks what you've done. Please be sure to fill in an accurate summary of exactly what changes you've made in that edit, so the other editors and even yourself coming back later have an accurate picture of what improvements were made in each edit. Usedtobecool ✉️  16:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation :)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpful Hippopotamus (talkcontribs) 22:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Helpful Hippopotamus: And please remember to sign your posts and comments here and on Talk pages. All it takes is four tildes: ~~~~. The automatic repair gets tedious to keep seeing, "Preceding unsigned comment added by...". Thanks in advance. --Thnidu (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thnidu: Yes, of course. Helpful Hippopotamus (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Is citing a physical copy OK?Edit

Is it OK to cite a physical copy or a physical DVD? Maxikray (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxikray (talkcontribs)

@Maxikray: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you may cite physical copies; there is no requirement that sources be online. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK to cite a newspaper article that can be found on Newsbank? To find out what NewsBank is, check out the following link:

Maxikray (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Maxikray: Please sign your posts so we know that you wrote them; you may do so by typing four tildes(~~~~) at the end of your post, or by clicking the Signature button on the screen located above the posting area(it looks like a scribble) while your cursor is at the end of your post. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@331dot: No offense, but I would still like to know if it is OK to cite a newspaper article that can be found on NewsBank. To find out what NewsBank is, check out the following link:

Maxikray (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Maxikray. You can cite any source that has been published, and is in principle available for a reader to get hold of, even if it might be difficult for them. A newspaper that only a few libraries have copies of would be OK. Of course, it is much easier for readers if the sources cited are readily available, but it is not a requirement. Note that this implies that the important part of most citations is the bibliographical information: title, author, date, page number, what publication etc. A URL is a convenience, not a crucial part of the citation. --ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
However, Maxikray, note that requirements for reliability vary with the type of article. A newspaper cite that is perfectly suitable for a history article may be unacceptable in,, say, a medical article. I learn a great deal about this by reading Talk pages whenever I browse an article--warning, it can become addictive--and by making mistakes & being corrected! --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Am I able to create an article now?Edit

Hi - I just went through the Wikipedia Adventure, where I made 10 edits. Does this mean I am allowed to create and upload articles now? Thank you! A newbie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterb21 (talkcontribs) 00:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You only created the account today, so you will need to wait four days until you can create a page directly; I'd recommend that you use the WP:AfC process, which you can do immediately, to create a draft and submit it for review. Ping me if you'd like me to look at your draft when you're done. GirthSummit (blether) 00:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much! User:Girth Summit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterb21 (talkcontribs) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
One more tip, Peterb21 - if you want another editor to receive a notification when you mention them in an edit (as you did in your last edit here, and as I am doing in this edit), you need to sign your post. You can do that by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your message, or by clicking on the 'Sign your posts on talk pages' button beneath the editing window. If you don't add the signature like this, the notification doesn't get sent. Good luck with the article, and do let me know if you want any help. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
here is my draft, thanks! [[user:Girth Summit] Peterb21 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Peterb21, I'm going to leave some comments on your talk page. cheers GirthSummit (blether) 08:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Tool for viewing WP page hits to all the pages on a disambig page?Edit

Is there a tool, administrator use or general use doesn't matter, for looking at all articles that disambiguate to a certain name, say Kumquat, so that admins or other might tell which of the many WP articles with Kumquat in the title or about Kumquats should perhaps be the main article (if any should)? Thanks. N2e (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The best I know of, is a list of "External tools" at the history page of every article. Specially "pageviews" tool might serve your purpose. I haven't tried it myself but, IIRC, it says you can compare upto 10 pages. Usedtobecool ✉️  06:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Adding to the response above, you might have already saw this but there is a list of tools that could help in finding the primary article at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. However it cautions "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move. Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons)..." OkayKenji (talk page) 06:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Went ahead and tried the tool anyway. Looks to me like someone's got some tough competition on the road to fame. Usedtobecool ✉️  07:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Meghan Markle is a redirect to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. She gets more hits than the fruits.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Guess that means more people come to Wikipedia from google search than use Wikipedia search. Usedtobecool ✉️  11:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, last one. Gonna bookmark this one, LOL! And the fruits too, why not? Usedtobecool ✉️  12:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Google's Wikipedia hit on Meghan Markle is the article and not the redirect. And Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is already the third search suggestion when I type meg in our search box. For some reason Meghan Markle doesn't appear until meghan markl. The misspelled redirect Meghan Markel already appears at meghan m. Readers may also follow internal wikilinks which vary between titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

let the authors be the authors User talk:Citation botEdit

This isn't a question, it's a quest. This is a privately owned and operated website, and as such, we are completely within our rights to have our own style guide. You are of course welcome to argue for its change, but not here. Posit arguments based in reliable sources and Wikipedia policies at the appropriate guideline's talk page. You might wish to note that for most of its history, The Chicago Tribune used idiosyncratic spellings for many words. At least we generally bow to Mr. Webster. Count your blessings. John from Idegon (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello! I have found a major problem with the citation bot. The citation bot doesn't respect the apostrophes as they appear in the title of original works and changes them to " ' " without any hint of remorse. In the novel novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, all words had to be simplified so that they can be easier to understand. The citation bot's policy is basically the same thing: ripping the original apostrophes out of the hands of the readers and handing them things that the authors didn't write. When the people of Taiwan type in English, they sometimes use curly apostrophes. I call on the community to assist me in making sure that we can let the authors be the authors- no need for help from a citation bot. "Fueled by texting, the anti-apostrophe movement seems to be gaining momentum, "[2] Yeah, but when it is being used, we don't need to jump on it and make sure it is in conformity with newspeak. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: the citation bot is correctly implementing MOS:APOSTROPHE. It's the agreed style not to use 'curly' apostrophes anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: I believe that the consensus must be reversed so that what the authors write can appear in the title/quote of citations and not something different that Wikipedia made up. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Try suggesting it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The font used by authors is not reproduced by Wikipedia, and I see no reason why it should be. Wikipedia does not change what authors write, just the font in which it is reproduced. Dbfirs 06:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Geographyinitiative. Are you fully conversant with the concept of a Style guide, also known as a Manual of Style? Please read this: "Because practices vary, a style guide may set out standards to be used in areas such as punctuation, capitalization, citing sources, formatting of numbers and dates, table appearance and other areas." We are discussing apostrophes, which are a form of punctuation, and because "practices vary", Wikipedia's Manual of Style has very specific conclusions about using straight apostrophes instead of curly apostrophes. This is not something "made up" but is instead a perfect reasonable standardization of a typographic variation. If you believe that this consensus "must be reversed", then you must build consensus among a group of editors who have been working on Wikipedia's Manual of Style for 18 years. Good luck to you in that venture. Do not be disruptive in your quest.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Hello- I must try to make my point as stridently and poignantly as I can so that I can hope to change your hearts, please don't be offended. All I am trying to say is that the content that an author types up should not be countermanded and overruled by you (or me, or anybody!). In truth, I don't see any need to negotiate or find consensus between myself and the editors of Wikipedia- there is a consensus between the author of the work I am citing and my eyeballs. Whatever the author used in the title of their work, I shall use in "title=" of the citation I add on Wikipedia. Whatever the author actually typed and is relevant to the article I am editing, I shall copy-paste and put in the "quote=" of the citation. The only problem is that there is some kind of ridiculous policy that has been extended to changing what authors have written just because some apostrophes are inconvenient. If you need consensus to copy-paste, there is something wrong. Let the authors be the authors. What they have written stands for itself. How dare you interfere between the authors and the readers of Wikipedia. We are the greatest generation of humanity- let this encyclopaedia be the greatest, and let us quote authors without any adding any interference. Thanks for your time and work on this website. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't really understand what the problem is here, Geographyinitiative. A straight and a curly apostrophe don't differ in meaning, so why would we want to use a mix of both rather than be consistent across articles? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry:Thanks for your time. I know that in normal experience, a curly apostrophe and a straight apostrophe are almost the same. But in point of fact, use of the curly apostrophe is a stylistic difference and must be respected. It tells you something about the author- for instance, it may tell you that the author may not be a native English speaker (potentially). The only consistency we need is consistency between the literal text of the authors and what is quoted on the website. Yeah, I'm okay with banning the curly apostrophes in the main text of Wikipedia. But in quotations in which the curly apostrophe is used, you're playing with fire to change what authors have written into something else. If I can't win you over, I understand. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
This is so not what these good people meant by building consensus. Usedtobecool ✉️  08:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
You only need to find consensus between yourself and the editors of Wikipedia when you're writing on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I may only need to have consensus between myself and the editors, but I want consensus between the literal text that the author gave us and the quotations I make of those works on Wikipedia. Where's the harm in letting the author be the author? Why change a text like that? Crass.Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I see no harm in it, the "don't mess with a quote"-argument is valid. But it's not the only argument, and I see no good enough reason to change WP-practise here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is. The text is what we need- not lies. When I lived in Wuhan, I would edit English language texts produced by people who were not native speakers. To my ire, they would often use the curly quotation marks in their word documents. The curly apostrophe is a sign that the person is not using the normal keyboard when writing English. Yes, it shouldn't be that way- yes, no one should use curly apostrophes- but it is and they do. Let reality in. You have admitted the strength of my argument. I don't see the value of the search argument vis-a-vis preserving the literal text of quotations. I have a consensus between my eyes and the works I quote. When you are ready to accept reality, let's stop the nonsense- allow people to quote the works literally. No more playing with people's texts. Including changing how I wrote my post. I hereby add the accursed ‘’ to my post- scary huh? Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Are you not aware that curly quotes has been an option in Word for the past 20 years at least? Some people set that option and some people do not. It's a matter of taste. I've had the option set for 20 years, but when editing Wikipedia I just follow the manual of style and use straight quotes. I recommend that you do the same and don't try to impose your personal preferences. For most authors, it will be the editor who decides what style to use in the published version, so we do not know what the author chose. Dbfirs 11:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Since this isn't a request for help or advice but a discussion, onein which the OP already knows what to believe/do, this thread should be moved to the talk page of the page where that particular MOS guideline is. Usedtobecool ✉️  11:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leon Battista Alberti, De re aedificatoriaEdit


Magda Saura. Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Construction History, Cottbus, May 2009 BUILDING CODES IN THE ARCHITECTURAL ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous editor. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Question on a punctuation issue that prevents a wikpedia link from working in Gmail.Edit

Links for these two pages... and

...are not working when used in a Gmail. The link is made with a Command C, copies well including the period at the end, but when a receiver clicks on the link, it doesn't work because the period at the end is not being included in the link.

Does anyone know how to make this work?

Hathalm (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Try adding a slash(/) at the end; like so: The hash sign (#) might work too, instead of slash. If it's practical, you can link to the first section of the page instead like If that doesn't work, try posting the question atWP:RD/C. That's where technical questions are answered. In here at the Teahouse, editors share their experiences in editing Wikipedia. There is no guarantee someone who's adept at technical things will pass by. Good luck! Usedtobecool ✉️  15:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hathalm, welcome to the Teahouse. You can also percent-encode the period as %2E. I guess works in Gmail. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I have made an edit [3] to Template:No article text which looks for a page name with an added period. It means that now displays "Did you mean: Joseph F. Ware Sr.?" PrimeHunter (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Writing links with possessive apostrophesEdit

Kind of a pedantic question, but what would be the right format with links that have a possessive apostrophe: "Elton John's house" or "Elton John's house"? Alivardi (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I was about to give you 2-3 reasons why I think the latter has got to be the preferred choice. But then I checked India, arguably the most seriously maintained featured article in here, and the former wins out in that one 2-0. So, I'm guessing it's either the community consensus/ common sense that the former is the choice, or nobody cares, not enough to enforce it even in the best maintained articles anyway. Usedtobecool ✉️  18:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, out of sheer laziness, I'd probably prefer to do the first option too. Thanks bro Alivardi (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Newcomer hereEdit

Hello I'm Eden and I would like to ask regarding the edit filter. I've been reverting edits which triggered the edit filter (I observed it through the filter logs). The question is, is it allowed for me to revert edits which triggered the edit filter? And what are my limitations on reverting this thing? Thank you. EdenNgiamba07 (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello EdenNgiamba07, and welcome to the Teahouse! Edits that trigger the edit filter are usually disruptive (e.g. vandalism), so you can revert them. However, edits that trigger the filter, may be false positives, so before reverting, assess whether or not the edit was disruptive. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 17:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Failed verification tagEdit

What should I do if important part of article has failed verification tag next to reference? This is article in question Capitalism and Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aocdnw (talkcontribs) 18:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

You can either add a different source that does verify the content or check the source and explain on the talk page why the verification doesn't fail (so why the content is supported by the reference). --MrClog (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I would add to that that you can also remove the content, Aocdnw, particularly if it has been tagged for some time. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: What's the most common value of 'some time' – a week? a month? half a year? --CiaPan (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I would say a few months, CiaPan, but it depends on the context. If the material seems likely to be false then it should be removed immediately. Ultimately, per WP:BURDEN, the responsibility for providing verifying citations is on the editor who adds or re-adds the material, so we shouldn't be shy about removing non-verified content. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification, Cordless Larry. --CiaPan (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How to edit?Edit

Hello, I'm trying to edit an article, "Human sexuality" and I don't think I did it right. I have all my information in a google doc but i'm still confused in how to publish/add my work into the article.Varzolao (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Copy and paste what you wrote in the Google Doc into the article by clicking the "edit" tab on desktop or the pencil icon on mobile. You need to make sure the article is not protected, which might be why you did not do it right. When you are done with the addition leave an edit summary if you wish, then click "publish changes". Your edit will be saved. I hope this helps answer your question. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 20:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
To others, see my reply here. The editor is being reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How long does it take to become an adminEdit

Hi, I have been editing for years as an IP and I’m ready to take the next step so I recently registered an account. But I was wondering, how much work and time does it take to be promoted to administrator? What kind of activities should I focus on to boost my chances? I’ve heard a lot about participating at AfD but I don’t know what that is. Also, which user rights would be the best to work on obtaining in the meantime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach of the cosmos (talkcontribs) 20:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, a user is required to have a few thousand edits to be an admin. I plan to become an administrator, so my goal is to have at least 2000 edits before application. I recommend reverting vandalism and warning vandalizing users using WP:RCP. If you have at least 200 mainspace (article) edits, apply for rollback before becoming an administrator. --LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 20:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. 2,000 edits doesn’t sound too difficult - I could probably knock that out in a week or two. Is there an area or a type of edit you would suggest that takes minimum effort and can be done rapidly? Also something else I’m curious about: Do you think that being an adult and broadcasting your fondness for My Little Pony is going to help you achieve adminship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach of the cosmos (talkcontribs) 21:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Zach of the cosmos, but I disagree with LPS and MLP Fan. You should probably be aiming for closer to 10,000 edits before considering running to be an administrator. More importantly, though, the quality and variety of the edits matters just as much as the number. Rapidly "knocking out" easy edits to hit a target is exactly the wrong way to go about becoming an admin. See Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship for further guidance. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Zach of the cosmos I wouldn't worry so much about "becoming an admin" and just worry about areas of the project where you want to help out the best that you can. You can do 95% of things on Wikipedia without being an administrator. If you just concentrate on doing good work in areas that interest you, you will develop an edit history of good contributions, be noticed, and should you show a need for admin powers, be nominated. They aren't given as a "promotion", they are given to people who the community believes would benefit it by having the powers. As noted above, it takes several thousand edits over months, if not years. Any nomination without that is likely to fail. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Zach of the cosmos, the notion that you can quickly "knock out" a few thousand edits and thereby become an administrator shows a deep misunderstanding of the process and what is required. You need to make edits that are thoughtful, careful, and productive. Your participation must show a deep understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and you must have a strong record of collaboration and building consensus. You do not just "knock out" that type of work. It takes serious, sustained effort for a long time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Zach of the cosmos, Yeah, I'm over 10,000 edits, and I still doubt that I'd pass an RfA. RfA is by its nature a subjective process. If you encounter behavioural problems, it takes longer (people need to trust that the issue is resolved).
it used to be that 500 edits as a "good vandal fighter" would get you the "mop", but those days are long gone (partly because rollback got "unbundled" - anyone with an can apply for it).
Adminship follows most naturally from an interest in maintenance areas of the encyclopedia. For that, Twinkle is a very useful anti-vandalism tool (it actually gives you a form of rollback). You need to wait for... all of 4 days and 10 edits to use Twinkle. Reporting vandals to WP:AIV is a good indicator of how you'd use the block tool if given adminship. Engagement in deletion debates - WP:AFD for articles, is another good indicator (as deletion is a big admin responsibility). Particularly, you could try WP:NPP, the new page patrol. Here, you can try using Twinkle to tag pages with "Speedy Deletion Criteria", see WP:CSD (or mark them as good, nominate them for deletion...). This is particularly an area of focus in RfA, as it signals where you might unilaterally delete an article. Twinkle helpfully keeps a log if you enable it - e.g. my CSD log.
Furthermore, if you're technically minded, I'm a Template Editor. This means that I can edit heavily transcluded pages (sometimes, like Template:Infobox, the number of articles that use it is in the millions).
Basically, there are loads of areas where you can help out, with a bit of experience. Adminship is no big deal, but it does have very high entry criteria (and it's very much a responsibility, it doesn't grant any special privileges beyond technical abilities). Some very prolific contributors (writing Featured Articles, for example) never become admins, by choice. Bellezzasolo Discuss 21:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi 331dot, I get what you’re saying, that “it’s not a promotion” and I understand that you have to say that in order to maintain the illusion of solidarity with lesser editors. Cullen: does Wikipedia not need admins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach of the cosmos (talkcontribs) 21:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything to maintain any "illusion"; it's the truth. Administrators are no better than other editors, they just have some extra buttons that would be irresponsible to the project for all users to have. If you see it as a promotion over 'lesser editors', I'm not sure that works in your favor. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, Cullen328 is not saying Wikipedia doesn't need admins. Admins can do things normal editors cannot do like block problematic editors and protect pages. Admins are important to Wikipedia, basically. PS: About your reply to me earlier, I need to tell you a secret: I am only in middle school. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 22:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@LPS and MLP Fan and Zach of the cosmos:, which isn't a definite barrier to adminship (there have been teenage bureaucrats before), but there's some level of opposition in any RfA due to that fact. 2000 edits almost certainly wouldn't cut it. Bellezzasolo Discuss 22:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

That is disappointing to hear. I was recently diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme and I was hoping that I might be able to achieve some status with the limited time I have left. Can an exception be made in my case? Zach of the cosmos (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

To add to the age-related question: the question is not if someone is an adult (e.g. 18+, though age differs per region), but if someone behaves in a mature way. Their behaviour must show at least a level of maturity expected from adults.
Now, here are my 2¢ on the "How long does it take to become an admin" question: generally, people tend to oppose candidates for adminship for users who are too new. "Too new" is deliberately vague, because different users may have different standards. In addition, not just how many edits count, but also the quality of the edits.
Also, administrators aren't "better" than other users, they simply have some buttons the community trusted them with. In the end, they're equal. --MrClog (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Zach of the cosmos: Adminship is not based on personal circumstances, so sickness does not allow for fast-tracking. I think you are giving too much value to adminship, the real fun of Wikipedia is writing articles. --MrClog (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry for your condition, but just as the Boston Red Sox, Manchester United, or New York Giants aren't going to let you play for them because you have a illness, you aren't going to be given admin powers because you have an illness.(you aren't the first to ask that) Illness leading to adminship would just lead to others lying about being sick to get admin powers, as we have no way to confirm any illness by a user. I would agree with MrClog above. Just concentrate on doing good work here. That's a great legacy. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"Not in reference" template?Edit

Portmanteau § Examples in English includes

(e.g., Renault markets its Twingo, a combination of twist, swing and tango).[1]

The title of the cited article is nothing like that, just "Renault Twingo hatchback review", and these words do not appear in the article itself. (In fact, the article and archive links go to two entirely different texts in different journals, but that's another can of worms.)

I'm sure I've seen a template to tag a footnote with something like "Not supported by reference", but I can't find it. Where is it, please?

* I found {{Failed verification }}. Thnidu (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Twist, Swing and Tango — it's the new Renault Twingo". Archived from the original on 2 September 2014.

--Thnidu (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Thnidu! That's the right template to use in that situation. I was able to locate a replacement source for the portmanteau (the Renault UK press office) and I went ahead and replaced the failed source with the new one. CThomas3 (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The OP found an answer to their question after having asked it here, added that answer and tried to mark this thread as resolved. So, we can safely consider this one closed, unless someone has an insight to share, of their own volition. Cheers! Usedtobecool ✉️  06:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of insights, Thnidu, it is recommended that editors don't refactor comments not even their own without explicit explanation because that could be very confusing. For example, there are two signatures from you there. It looked as though someone had asked a question and forgot to sign and you had added two replies trying to help them, before I went through the history. In this case, a lot less confusing would have been if you'd just added that information about what you found at the bottom of your comment, in a separate comment. If you have to change what you've said in your comments itself, it should accompany an explanation. Put the words you need to erase between <s></s> tags and add substitute words next to it. If you need to add without erasing anything, it's better to do it in a new comment, or maybe write an explanation in parenthesis at the beginning of the text that's newly added. Not saying there's a problem here specifically (you don't need to do anything about it in this thread), just a general note for the future. Happy editing! Usedtobecool ✉️  06:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cthomas3 and Usedtobecool: Thank you both! Usedtobecool, I'm going to copy your advice about not refactoring to save with my useful wiki info. --Thnidu (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thnidu, haha! I recommend adding this to your list then: WP:RTP Usedtobecool ✉️  16:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Finding wiki terminologyEdit

Early last month, after seeing an obituary for Dr. John, I added to the article about his first record, Gris-Gris, that its title was printed as "GRIS-gris". But I couldn't remember whether the term we use for such modifications is "fashioned", "styled" or "stylized". I tried to find it in the "Help" namespace, without success. I finally thought to look in Nine Inch Nails, where I read

Nine Inch Nails, commonly abbreviated as NIN (stylized as NIИ)

so that's how I noted the form of the album name:

Gris-Gris (stylized as GRIS-gris)

But how is such a term to be found, if anywhere?

--Thnidu (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It is mentioned at MOS:TMSTYLE. Such rules regarding style can most easily be found using the search box at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. --MrClog (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I feel your pain - once you know the right key word, it's so much easier to look up. These aren't great references, but it is mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Italicizing an article titleEdit

I created an article for a film, but in the article title I did not italicize the film title and cannot figure out how to make that edit now. Please advise, thank you! MBAWilbins (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

To make the film title italicized on the page, put ten "straight" apostrophes (five on each side of the film you are writing about). --LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 22:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

When the editing tool comes up, I’m only seeing the body of the article and not the article title. Does that make sense? MBAWilbins (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I made an article about a book, Fuzzy Mud, which has an italicized article title, because books and films need to be italicized. Visit the aritcle, and look at this diff to see how I made the book's title in italics. Do the same for your article. --LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 23:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help! I’ll check that out! MBAWilbins (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC) If I’m only trying to make a change to the article title (italicizing the article name), do I have to “move” the page? MBAWilbins (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

No, simply add {{Italic title}} to the page (at the top). --MrClog (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, MrClog is correct. The full documentation is at Template:Italic title. I made the edit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I thought {{Infobox book}} and {{Infobox film}} were supposed to italicise the title anyway, Cullen328? --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, and many thanks for your input and help! MBAWilbins (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, ColinFine. Use of certain infoboxes will automatically italicize the article title. But infoboxes are optional, not mandatory, and often contentious. Best to offer a broad answer that works uncontroversially in all cases. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A query about the meaning of some phrases in the entry about Emperor Nintoku.Edit

"The achievements of Nintoku's reign which are noted in the Nihon Shoki include: constructed a thorn field bank called Naniwa no Horie to prevent a flood in Kawachi plains and for development. It is assumed that this was Japan's first large-scale engineering works undertaking established a thorn field estate under the direct control of the Imperial Court (mamuta no miyake) constructed a Yokono bank (horizontal parcel, Ikuno-ku, Osaka-shi)"

What is a 'thorn field bank'? Obviously the sentence refers to some kind of earthen bank or wall to divert flood waters, but what does 'thorn field' mean in this context? Similarly, what does 'thorn field' mean in the phrase "thorn field estate"? And what is a 'Yokono bank'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sclamaneen (talkcontribs) 02:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Those are very good questions, Sclamaneen! I suspect the Emperor Nintoku article was primarily translated from Japanese (not very well). I tried a little digging, and most queries pointed to the Wikipedia article (or banking establishments in Thornfield, Missouri). The last question, surely relates to the Yokono River; although not listed in the List of rivers of Japan, I found a reference here: [4]. But the usage of the word 'bank' is not very clear in this context. I suggest posting a query on the article's talk page (Talk:Nihon Shoki[oops] Talk:Emperor Nintoku ). Although waiting for a response on an obscure article's talk page can literally take years, your query might someday prompt somebody to improve the article. I recommend also bringing your query to Wikipedia: Reference desk {probably the language desk, or perhaps miscellaneous desk); they are usually excellent at finding referenced answers to obscure content-related questions. I hope this helps! Otherwise, another helpful and courteous editor will reply soon.  2606:A000:1126:28D:E5B5:B088:3A46:1619 (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Add a {{what?|date=July 2019}} next to that word/phrase to bring attention of other users to that issue. To find out the answer for yourself, ask at the reference desk. Usedtobecool ✉️  05:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems there was some civil engineering done to control seasonal flooding of the Okono. A type of thorny plant may have been grown on the dikes to stabilize them, such as barberry or plum. My insight comes from this source ("Construction of Dykes") which does not mention thorns, but does mention human sacrifice as an alternative to dike construction.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
You might also post the article at pages needing translation, in the cleanup section. But progress there is very slow. Lectonar (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


Why Don't. Squash page is build a — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Squash redirects to a list of pages that have "squash" in their names/titles because there is no way to tell exactly what a person could be looking for when they say squash. I think this has been done mainly because there is no way to decide which is the most looked for topic among squash, the sport, the plant and the drink. You'll need to clarify your query before any more can be said. Usedtobecool ✉️  05:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How to get a new page searchableEdit

Dear Folks,

I have created a new page entitled Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria. It happens that formal research that I have just had published indicates that the Sugarloaf Creek pastoral station, founded in 1837, was more notable than has ever been recognised. There has never been a Wikipedia for this Sugarloaf Creek.

But I cannot get the title searchable. If I search google with 'Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria' (without quotes of course), I do not get it.

How do you fix it.


Mwill66 (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Wikipedia is free to create articles and edit for all. This means that sometimes malicious agents may create bogus pages that can have harmful effects in the world and to Wikipedia's credibility. So, new pages don't get automatically indexed by search engines. They need to first be vetted by trusted users with special rights, according to this. There is usually a backlog as there are more editors creating pages than trusted editors who have the right to approve these pages for indexing, and this is entirely a volunteer-based community. As such, all you can do is wait. Usedtobecool ✉️  06:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mwill66 and Usedtobecool: I'd also add that Wikipedia can tell the indexing machines whether specific page sould be indexed or not, but it's always the indexing machine's decision whether it fetches some page or not. And Wikipedia has no way to enforce one action or another on indexing machine. So can only wait. :) CiaPan (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Of course! I tried searching for 'Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria wikipedia'. Google knows what it's doing but Bing and Duckduckgo list the talk page pretty high up even though they know the article isn't ready for listing yet, so, LOL! And wait. Google trusts wikipedia implicitly, at least officially, so although they can ignore, they won't. So, wait for the page to be approved by Wikipedia and google will oblige. Haha! Usedtobecool ✉️  08:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

All new articles have a "noindex" tag attached to them that tells Google not to index them. The tag is removed when a patroller reviews the article, and experience tells me that once that is done, it will be indexed by Google within minutes and you can then immediately find it by searching.

There is a large backlog of articles waiting to be reviewed (as in several months long), so Wikipedia is also set to automatically remove the "noindex" tag after 90 days, even if the article has not been reviewed by anyone, and in theory, this should make it available for indexing by Google. However, this doesn't actually seem to make Google index the article - even after the 90-day mark passes and the tag comes off, I have found that they still won't index my articles until a patroller marks them as "reviewed", anyway.

Long story short, as others above said, you just have to sit tight and wait (usually for several months) for a patroller to get to your article and review it. I have several articles that have been waiting 3 months already and still aren't indexed by Google because they haven't come up for review yet, so be patient. It takes a while due to the backlog. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


Hi to the editors who have deleted my first submission. I note that the reasons deletion are all general. I would greatly appreciate some specific details. For example, every source I used came from established newspapers or broadcasters. How can I improve on this? I gather headlines are required for those sources and perhaps the urls should be shortened. If this would help it iseasiuly done. Anything else you can tell me in detail would be amazing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautiful Smokey (talkcontribs) 08:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Beautiful Smokey: welcome back to the tea house. The link to your deleted sandbox is User:Beautiful Smokey/sandbox, and it looks like that is the only page you have created (twice). Since only administrators can see deleted pages, most of us here at the tea house won't be able to comment on the contents, but the deletion reasons had nothing to do with the sources or the formatting, that much I can see from the deletion log. If you click on the link to the deleted page you will see the user names of the administrators who deleted the page, and you can contact them on their respective user talk pages. Please make sure to include information about which page it is you are asking about. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Polish Chicken_is the current content of the page presenting biased information?Edit

The Polish Chicken Wikipedia page <> contains a whole lot of speculations about the origin of this breed of birds. I understand that this breed has been bred for a long time in Holland and eventually registered in the US as of Dutch origin, but that doe's not mean that the information recorded in US poultry association is reliable, valid, and relevant.

Somewhere in the second paragraph, I found something a somewhat ludicrous revelation, that the bird's name Polish (or Poland) is derived from the Middle Dutch word "pol". Let's be serious. Similarly, the author of the note might want to derive the name of the country of Poland from this Dutch word. Is this the standard we a hoping to provide in Wikipedia? My belief is, that as long as the authors speculate their statement is burdened with many risks of cognitive distortions that result in the circular logic type of argument, where conclusion becomes its premise. In my opinion, this kind of speculations should not be included in a text that has the ambition to serve as a source of popular knowledge. I am asking the editors to critically review this thread.

Another weak thing is supporting the text with popular guides' references. Look, we live in times of print-on-demand and self-publishing, and every literate layperson person can at any time become a self-made expert in popular knowledge. That's what some references provided here look like. Let's have a look at the first sentence: <The oldest accounts of these birds come from The Netherlands; their exact origins are unknown, however.[1] (Carol Ekarius, 2007)>. The Ekarius book is very carefully published but it is by a small Publishing house. Ekarius is their livestock expert with diverse interests <>. In the second paragraph of her book <'s%20Illustrated%20Guide%20to%20Poultry%20Breeds%20Complete#page/n3/mode/2up>, p.145, Ekarius explains that "In spite of the name, the Polish breed is not from Poland" (no reference), and further: "The breed as we know it today comes from Holland,..." (no reference, no details) and further: "... (where Polish birds show in paintings dating back to the fifteenth century) but its beginnings are unclear." (no references about the source form Mrs. Ekarius, no particulars about aforementioned paintings or painters). This is unsubstantiated claim and is an unsupported opinion, and even if printed in a book, I don't think it fits the standard, Wikipedia should be aiming at.

I do not know where this breed comes from. I am Polish and, of course, it would be nice to feel a historical-cultural relationship with this bird that is loved my so many. I know that it appeared here and there in Polish literature and visual art (at least in what was not damaged during the two world wars and the country partitions during the entire nineteenth century, i.e., at the time of the documented breeding in Holland), but it would not be acceptable for me, to force in my beliefs and wishes where I don't hold strong evidence.

Please, take a critical look at the Wikipedia text on Polish Chicken, and where possible, please verify the references, add a relevant in-text citation or revise the text deleting the information which is not evidence-supported. We cannot post unsubstantiated statements, are we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasia Polish (talkcontribs) 08:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Kasia Polish This page is for new users to ask questions about using Wikipedia, not to bring up concerns with an article. You should do that on the article talk page. You can even make such a comment as a formal Request for Comment. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The article's Talk page has two (!) extended debates on the origin of the name. Not saying not to start a new discussion, but read the existing ones first. David notMD (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing protected (locked) articles.Edit

Hi. I am a new member and hopefully editor of Wikipedia. Sometimes I come across articles that need to be updated with new information but they are locked and therefore I am unable to correct them.

Is there any solution to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oveis67 (talkcontribs) 08:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Oveis67 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may use the article talk page to make an edit request.(read that link for instructions) 331dot (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)



I wrote a article about Simona Cerutti. It was critized because not all of it has citations. The reason is that the information without citation was sent to by Email directly by the person I'm writing about (as it wasn't possible to find it online. Can I use the Email as a citation or how should I handle this problem?

Kind regards Mikro is MikroMikro is Mikro (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I'm afraid that you can't use that information, anything you write must be sourced to a reliable, secondary publication. It doesn't have to be online - books, newspapers and magazines that appear only in print are also viable sources, but an e-mail from the subject of an article is not a published source, and it's not independent, so it is not usable for our purposes.
If you are in e-mail communication with the subject, it's possible that you may have a COI with regard to them - you should review the guidelines and take the necessary steps if so. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Page validationEdit


Can you please tell me if this page is good to go online ?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommErt (talkcontribs) 14:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@CommErt: You may simply put this code: {{subst:submit}} at the top of your draft and see what feedback you get. :) However, I think it's better to move Draft:MissWrite to Draft:Eurailtest before submitting. --CiaPan (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I have moved it to Draft:Eurailtest.   Maproom (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@CommErt: IMHO the draft is far too promotional in tone to be accepted as an article. I have marked some of the expressions, whose tone does not sound 'encyclopedic' enough for me. --CiaPan (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


Is this the same sweet young name that does cameoes on the Korean variety show Home Alone, and what is the name of the Chinese historical drama he stars in as a king,? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! You are at the wrong address. The place you are looking for is WP:RD/E. Good luck! Usedtobecool ✉️  16:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Getting Into WikipediaEdit

Hi! I'm, pretty new to Wikipedia and was wondering if there was anyone I could talk to to get a better understanding of how everything works. I'm considering starting a research-based club at my school and was wondering if Wikipedia would be a good place to post our findings. How do you become better at editing pages? Do you do research with the sole intention of adding to a page, or do you only edit pages where you have background information? (sorry I haven't made my profile page yet) Owenwitt (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Owenwitt

  • There is no requirement for a profile page on Wikipedia. In any case, it should be concise and describe your editing intentions on Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind, no original research. All editing based on reliable sources as citations. Advice is to start by editing existing articles before ever trying to create an article. Helpful links posted on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

My edits - Are they trolling?Edit

I was reading User:Jimbo Wales and saw a word in a sentence that added nothing it. I removed it with an edit summary of better. User:Serial Number 54129 reverted the edit with no explanation as to what was wrong with the edit. I restored my edit and used a better edit summary, "unexplained revert, no need for either of these words, they add nothing to the sentence" Serial Number 54129 again reverted the edit without explaining why. I went to User talk:Serial Number 54129#User:Jimbo Wales and asked for an explanation why they reverted the edits. The response was that user pages shouldn't be refactored. I discussed that doesn't apply to that page as Jimbo has specifically said that he wants people to edit his page. Their response is that you can edit but the edit might not stand. I responded that I accept that but not that no valid reason is given to revert the edit. The response is a huge picture of books. With that being their only response I removed the word again. This time the revert had a reason, "rm trolling". As this was their 3rd revert in 3 hours, I left an edit warring template on their talk page and explained I was not trolling but making an edit I thought was an improvement and no one had countered. Those two edits were reverted by User:Bonadea with an edit summary of "Well, this is certainly trolling". I left a message for Bonadea asking how that is trolling (they have yet to edit since they reverted the edits). Then over an hour after Serial Number 54129 made their last revert, they left a warning on my talk page calling my edits; "test edits". I would like someone else's opinion. Are my edits trolling? And if you feel they are trolling, please explain how they are trolling. (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If you make one edit, and it's reverted, that's not trolling. If you make it three times, and it's reverted each time, then you aren't listening. As Administrator Iridescent advised you, in the case of this particular paragraph the wording was carefully chosen by him to address particular issues (that sources differ regarding his name and date of birth, which causes obvious issues when it comes to being the figurehead of a project based on only reflecting sources), and probably shouldn't be changed without good reason ([5]). Not me, not Larry Sanger, and not you. Incidentally, Bonadea was referring exclusively to your edits on my talk, which by then was patent trolling. ——SerialNumber54129 17:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Like I said, I want someone else's opinion. (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
When you make stylistic changes to the prose on a user page, you have not improved it. By insisting on repeating that change, you become a pest. Please do not persist.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, what would you have done if I had logged into my account and made the same edit. ~ GB fan 18:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Filed against you at WP:ANI, GB fan, probably. After all, logging out and making disruptive edits is not exactly approved of. I'm far more lenient with transients. How goes the retirement? ——SerialNumber54129 18:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, What I am asking is if I had made the exact same edit from my logged in account as I made from the IP, what would you have done. Would you have reverted the edit with no edit summary? I have not made any disruptive edits, I am not avoiding scrutiny. I made an edit that improved the sentence and you disruptively reverted without explaining why. ~ GB fan 18:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
You keep telling yourself that. You really think you know better than Iridescent? One does not "disruptively" revert an unnecessary edit to another user's talk page. ——SerialNumber54129 18:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say that the revert was disruptive. I am saying reverting without an adequate explanation why you are reverting is disruptive. ~ GB fan 18:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Would you have reverted the exact same edit made by this account without explaining why you were making the revert? ~ GB fan 18:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
So, to clarify, you thought it would be a good idea to log out and then edit the most high-profile user page on the project? Incredible. ——SerialNumber54129 18:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I logged out over a month ago except for a single edit. I was reading and noticed the extra word and removed it. I did not log out to edit the page. You still haven't said if you would have reverted without explanation if my account had made the edit. To me that indicates you wouldn't. ~ GB fan 18:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Hello IP user, as per our article on the subject, Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation... If you would like to further explore the topic, you can raise the question at the reference desk. The Teahouse can only tell you what you can do with the issue you have encountered. When someone reverts you for the first time without a summary, you are within your rights to revert it back and ask for an explanation in the summary. But, if it's reverted again, you have found yourself in a content dispute and are advised to follow dispute resolution procedures, even if the other user doesn't give a reason for the revert. At the very least, this gives you a highground if you end up having to seek third party intervention. You should not violate the WP:3RR rules, and can report the other user to WP:AN3 if they do. Keep in mind though that, in a highly vandalised page like User:Jimbo Wales, experienced editors of good repute might have a valid case for violating 3RR, as vandalism is an exception to that rule. The WP:TALK could be invoked and work in their favor as well, despite the fact that the user specifically asked you to edit (Note that the user has also said that vandalisms will be reverted promptly by watchful others.). Now, with regard to the content dispute, per WP:BRD, you should take the matter to the talk page of the relevant page, which is user talk:Jimbo Wales. Taking it to the editor's talk page had better be done only if the editor doesn't respond to a call for discussion on the relevant talk page. Note that a user talk page could be watched by many of their friends, and you might find yourself a minority pretty quickly. Alternatively, they might have pissed off a lot of disruptive editors in the past, and the opposite might happen. As such, that is not a neutral ground for seeking consensus over a dispute. When and if you can't resolve the dispute between yourselves, you can ask for a third opinion, and if that doesn't work, you can start a formal Request for comment. Refer back to WP:DR for full details and procedures. If the other editor is uncivil or displays disruptive behaviour during your attempt at dispute resolution and consensus building, you can seek administrator support at WP:ANI. I would add that WP:POINT and WP:IAR also exist and should be kept in mind when you enter a formal process in Wikipedia. Good luck! Usedtobecool ✉️  19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:GB fan, if you are indeed the one who was asking the question as an IP, I would remind you that the Teahouse is a place for novice editors to seek guidance, and definitely not one to make a wikipolitical WP:POINT. I advise you to seek resolution through the channels I advised of above, which you might already know of as well. Good luck! Usedtobecool ✉️  19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool: Whilst the Teahouse has been specifically designed to make it easy for new users to ask questions, it is not solely a place for novice editors to ask questions. In fact, anyone can ask a question. Also, this (to me) seems WP:NOTPOINTy (making a point is different that disrupting to show a point). --MrClog (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree you have a point, but I also stand by my original remarks, LOL! Usedtobecool ✉️  22:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I would just like to weigh in here for a moment and make some commentary on the actual stylistic consequence of the removal of the word that is at the heart of this matter. The editor changed the sentence People sometimes assume that "Jimmy" is just a nickname for "James" to People sometimes assume that "Jimmy" is a nickname for "James", and I would register my disagreement with the suggestion that the word "just" there is a word that, to paraphrase the poster, adds nothing. I would actually suggest that it in fact adds nuance. Compare for example the circumstance where you say that somebody "is a lyricist"; if you were to append that sentence to say that the same somebody "is just a lyricist" you have immediately signaled your view that a lyricist is a lesser thing than some other quality of thing. In exactly that way this sentence signals that a nickname is actually understood to be considered to be inferior in some sense or to some degree to the name that it is derived from, and that this person in fact does not consider their name to bear such a badge of inferiority to the name from which people might incorrectly assume that it was derived. StewBrewer (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@StewBrewer: If "somebody 'is just a lyricist'" that would mean that he only write the words as against a lyricist/composer or singer/songwriter, I don't see it as demeaning lyricists. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
This may indeed be true, but even if it is not taken as demeaning, it is still setting it apart from the other thing. I would continue to maintain that the sentence has a different meaning with it from without it. StewBrewer (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

How can i make my page visible /Edit

How can i make my page visible on search engines and create exact page as the link below:

Thank You

Destiny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destiny Chiamaka Emmanuel (talkcontribs) 17:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Destiny. The user page autobiography you have created will not ever be visible on search engines because it is not visible to them. Instead, you must create an article on Wikipedia, in a similar format to the article on Akinwunmi Ambode. Please read the following articles and note carefully their major points:

Also note the helpful articles listed on your Talk page Best of luck to you.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It appears that what you did is use your User page to create article-like content. This is not what the User page is for, and has been deleted. You can attempt to create an article in your Sandbox, or as a draft. Neither of these will appear in search engines. Only if submitted and then approved by reviewer would an article move to main space, and be searchable. Quisqualis gave you informative pages to look at, among them that Wikipedia strongly advises against attempting an autobiography. David notMD (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Is that intended by MediaWikiEdit

Is this an intended thing by the software. I mean, that you create a div that is above all content of the page and blocking clicks as well as scrolling? (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with MediaWiki. It is normal behavior of the your browser: fixed positioned div occupies the whole viewport. Ruslik_Zero 19:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the question is: "why does MediaWiki allow malicious divs like this?" (For what it's worth, in my browser I can still click on "edit" and "history"—so it's not difficult to revert it.) Eman235/talk 19:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Software intentions are better explored at WP:RD/C, although I am curious why it is what it is. Despite what it's doing, the page is seems to be working just fine, as it pertains to fulfilling its prime directive, unless it behaves differently with IPs. Usedtobecool ✉️  19:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Kundan Srivastava Human Rights activistEdit

Hi Team,

I came to know that some people tried to submit an article about Kundan Srivastava and the article was rejected 3-4 times a few years before because of lack of resources.

Now he has handsome of sources. Can we have a Wikipedia profile of Kundan Srivastava? Can you verify his reliable sources are mentioned below. I’ll be highly grateful to you.

If you will allow then will submit the article about Kundan. He’s a noted Indian human rights activist. Below is the google knowledge panel source.






Works: Sushma Swaraj

Social Media Profiles:

Surbhi20 (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Surbhi20, this appears to be reference bombing. Many of the sources you cite do not mention Srivastava at all, and those which do (at least on a spot check) seem only to be a name drop or brief mention. No number of mentions or name drops results in notability. The requirement is that multiple independent and reliable sources (which your top two are not) cover the subject in depth, not just mention them. That still does not seem to be the case here. If you have some sources you believe satisfy that requirement, please note two or three of those and those particular ones can be evaluated, but a bunch of passing mentions won't do the trick. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


Thankyou for your reply. Sir, all the sources I cite do mention Srivastava’s works.

I understood your words for the independent and multiple sources that you mentioned.

Out of these 6 sources mentioned below many you consider as reliable sources for Wikipedia?





Surbhi20 (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Surbhi20, hi - I'm afraid that from a quick check, none of those sources look suitable to me. I've never heard of 'Celebrityborn', 'writingtipsoasis' or 'bepositive' before, but none of them look like reliable sources with reputations for fact checking to me. The name of 'popularwikibio' implies that it is UGC, so also not reliable. INVC might be a bit better, but to be honest that looks like a rehashed press release, and winning a non-notable award (we don't have an article on it, so I assume it is not notable) doesn't make the subject notable. Is there any significant coverage of him in national news media? That would be a good start. GirthSummit (blether) 14:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou so much for making me understand. Will search his significant coverage of national news media and will get back to you soon.

Surbhi20 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

For your main question ‘Can we have a Wikipedia profile of Kundan Srivastava? ’ the answer is: NO.
Wikipedia is not social media (see WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA) – we don't have 'profiles' of anyone. We have articles about notable subjects, with specific criteria of notability (see WP:NOTABILITY). --CiaPan (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

New Entry - ArtworkEdit


I researched in grad school who does not have a Wiki entry and I feel should have one, and I joined so that I can write one, since I've accumulated more than enough resources about him and his work. Much of his work I have seen either in person or in photo documentation, and I'm wary of how much of my own observations, if not included in the verbiage of one of my sources, I can include in my entry.

Can descriptive observations of a work of art be included in a wiki entry if they are made either in person by the writer of the entry, or from images and documentation for which there is no accompanying text?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmerringer (talkcontribs) 18:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

In answer to your questions - no, no, no, no. Your own observations are considered original research, which is forbidden. All content has to come from reliable sources. David notMD (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ben Lee Violinist PageEdit

Could you please help me with the afd deletion notices on this page. Ben Lee (violinist) the page.Or how one would go about finding help with editing the page, so it may be saved from deletion. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Armstrong21 (talkcontribs)

Armstrong21 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you click on the link in the Articles for Deletion notice, it will take you to the discussion page created to discuss the deletion proposal. There, you can see and respond to the nominator's concerns. What is your interest in "saving" the article(not just "page") from deletion? 331dot (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I would add that, at the bottom of the AfD notice, there is a list of links under "find sources". Open each of those links in new tabs and explore a little to see if you can find new WP:RS that have WP:SIGCOV of him. If so, the article can be saved, if not, it's better to let it get deleted if community deems it necessary and recreate it once such sources become available to address all concerns that are raised in this AfD. Usedtobecool ✉️  19:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Reporting vandalismEdit

The Build a Bear article was vandalized. I know a bit about reverting, but if I revert, am I responsible for placing a warning on the user talk page of the vandal? Thanks. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

DiamondRemley39, you don't necessarily have to warn a user if you revert vandalism, but it's a good idea to do so. I've reverted the vandalism and given the warning in this case. Take a look at WP:TWINKLE for a tool to help in giving warnings, as well as many other things, if you like. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The Page For Card's Against Humanity Needs An UpdateEdit

Specifically the section of packs they've come out with.

I've never edited an article and have no intention to but the pride pack, college pack, and many others aren't showing up and should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey! You state you have no intention to edit an article. In that case, you may make an edit request at the article's talk page by following the instructions here. --MrClog (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Wiki article was created with an individuals formerly known as name?Edit


There is a wiki article under the name Michael Hiltner- he is still living and has been known as Victor Vincente of America (his now legal name) since the 70s. I am working on an article about him, but believe the title should be changed and there should be a "...formerly known as Michael Beckwith Hiltner," in the bio section. From what I've read, it's not so simple to change this. Would someone share what my options are, if any? I want there to be a fleshed out and acurate article that reflects the name he's had for the last almost 50 years.

Thank you, Ash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelvie (talkcontribs) 02:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: Article title is Michael Hiltner, not MBH. David notMD (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Corrected original post to reflect accurate article title. Oh, the irony! Aelvie (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Aelvie, the relevant information to your query is at the WP:NCP page, particularly the WP:SPNC section. Since it's quite clear, and is a hassle to summarise, I recommend reading the page itself. If you still have questions after reading it, we can discuss it further. As to the particulars of what your options are, it always starts with beginning a conversation at the most relevant page. If no one objects, it could become as simple as a BOLD page move to the new name. Otherwise, standard WP:DR procedure applies. Good luck! Usedtobecool ✉️  13:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Editor with COI behaving like s/he "owns" page.Edit

I don't know the best way to deal with the situation at Midwest University. There is an editor with an admitted conflict of interest who is behaving as though s/he owns the page, is changing the work of two other editors back to how s/he believes the page should read, and won't engage on his/her talk page. Is this considered vandalism for AIV purposes? Is there something I should do that I haven't done yet?  Eyercontact  03:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Eyer Pls provide editor/IP name that you mentioned above to understand and to advise further if the editor made vandalized edits or it is a content dispute. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA — Thanks. I appreciate another set of eyes. It's User:Tbum777. In a diff, the editor stated "I am an employee of the University and I have corrected information." On a previous version of the user's talk page, the editor stated "I have been instructed my the President of the institution to correct the information."  Eyercontact  03:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Eyer, this is useful information about what looks like a serious policy violation. Please file a report at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, which is the proper venue to look into this. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Eyer and Tbum777:, I had a look at the edit made by both of you and you guys are engaging in WP:edit warring and would subject to be blocked for both of you violated the WP:3RR guideline. Pls stop revert each other edit immediately and bring the discussion to the article talk page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been trying to engage the editor on the User talk page. I'll try to engage on the article Talk page instead. I will still go to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, as I believe this is still an issue. Thanks again.  Eyercontact  03:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Eyer: You have warned Tbum777 on their talk page and not engaging in a discussion that is a big different. Communication is the key to resolve the issue in the article talk page to find a resolution. Do note any info change need to support by independent reliable source. If that doest not work then bring the issue to WP:ANI. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: To be fair to me, my warning included an invitation to discuss the situation: "[Y]ou may want to make use of the page Talk:Midwest University, to discuss any changes you propose. I am happy to facilitate changes to the article on your behalf." I welcome feedback on how I can communicate better, though, and I've taken yours. I'll post an invitation for discussion on the article talk page and see if that helps. Thanks again.  Eyercontact  03:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Highway ReststopsEdit

As we've driven across the U.S. multiple times it has occurred to us that there is no easy way to identify public rest stops along the major interstate highways. We use the wiki mobile app along our routes the navigator of our car reads out points of interest along the highway. I'd like to see if there is any interest in creating a series of pages along major Highways that have a standard template of features and links.

Users of the mobile app would be able to see these major points of public interest.

It would be nice if someone could click between these public rest stops along the major Interstate routes. Here is an example of a website that could be used as a source.

Interstate 20 Highway rest stops

Any interest?

Razinni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razinni (talkcontribs) 03:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not even sure that you are talking about Wikipedia but since no one's replied, I would like to say that The Teahouse is not equipped to handle the discussion of a proposal such as yours. If Wikipedia can do anything about what you want done, I think the best place to start would be at WP:Village pump, although I suspect they might direct you to the phabricator instead. Good luck! Usedtobecool ✉️  13:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I think WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK might apply here. John from Idegon (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


I wrote a question that was mistaken as an article. I don't know Henry's last name but do know he acted in a classical kdrama and does cameoes on Home Alone. I wanted to know what the name of his new Historical Chinese dramas is. I also wonder why Home Alone isn't in his credits — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

See the answer to your previous question at #Henry above. David Biddulph (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Honeybee subspecies - A. m. carnica or A. m. carpatica?Edit

Flagged RevisionsEdit

hello, I have edited an Arabic page but it says it is" Flagged Revisions" I would like to know the reason please and how I can fix it. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temlal Rozi (talkcontribs) 13:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Temlal Rozi: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As your account has no other edits to the English Wikipedia other than your above comment, I assume you are referring to a page on the Arabic Wikipedia; you will need to address any issues with your edits to that version of Wikipedia there. Each language version of Wikipedia is its own project, with its own rules and processes. If I am in error, please clarify. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Temlal Rozi: Hi and welcome to the English Wikipedia Teahouse. Please note that we cannot answer questions about other projects here, each language Wikipedia has their own rules and procedures. If you look on the left side of this page (at the top), you will see a box entitled "languages", there you can find a link to the Teahouse on the Arabic Wikipedia. You might also want to read meta:Flagged Revisions. Regards SoWhy 13:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Open ProxyEdit

Where can i report Open Proxy(s)? -- CptViraj (📧) 13:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello CptViraj,How exactly did it harm the project?Usedtobecool ✉️  15:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@CptViraj: open proxies can be reported at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages of Draft articles?Edit

Most Draft articles have no content on the Talk page, but I've seen a few. What happens if the article goes through successfully? Does the article start with a blank Talk page, or does the content carry over? David notMD (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Article is moved to the mainspace to preserve history of contributors, talkpage follows wherever the article goes, history and all. Usedtobecool ✉️  15:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Add a photo on someone profileEdit

How can i add a photo on someone profile? like someone profile pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MONZUR MORSHED (talkcontribs) 16:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

MONZUR MORSHED, Hi! For a Userpage, or for an article? I would recommend using the upload Wizard at Wikimedia Commons
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegooduser (talkcontribs) 16:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

page deletionEdit


Hope you're well.

I have edited the AdviceUK page on Wikipedia, however it has been deleted for copyright reasons. The text has been used from our website and it is our context, it is not copywriting. Can you please explain why this has been taken down?

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Kind Regards,

Aashish Parmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by AParmar2019 (talkcontribs) 16:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aashish. Even if you own the content, you cannot use it on Wikipedia as it would still be copyright (you would hold the copyright) and Wikipedia requires all content to be copyright-free. You would need to donate the material under an appropriate license, and you can find more information about that here: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also, I can't see the deleted page so I'm not sure what the background is or what you mean by 'your website', but it's worth noting that if you work for an organisation that is related to the page you are editing, then you should be aware of our policies on conflict of interest and paid editing. I hope this helps Hugsyrup (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, AParmsr2019, even if you donate the material, it is most unlikely that the content of the organisation's website will be suitable for a Wikipedia article about the organisation. A Wikipedia article should be almost entirely based on material which people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject. What the subject of the article says or wants to say about themselves is almost irrelevant. Most of the factual content of the website will be inadmissible unless it is also published in independent sources; and the way that material is presented is not likely to be neutral. --ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I seem to be incapable of typing your user name right. Repinging again AParmar2019. --ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Log in and SynchronizationEdit

Since a while my Tablet Fire HD (Fire OSD stopped synching with my Android one smartphone. The moment I log In Wikipedia on my Fire tablet I get the message “logged in”. Unfortunately, Wikipedia keeps showing “LOG IN”. I guess I’m not properly logged in and thus synchronization does not work? This worked in the beginning. Both devices update OS automatically. It is impossible to know this problem started after a certain update. Thank you for helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqcrob (talkcontribs) 17:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Clear your browser cache to log out. If on a PC do the same and then flush your DNS. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 17:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Publishing About A Comoany.Edit

I have a company registered in London. I want to put my company details on the wikipedia for better understanding about my company. But when i placed my article Wikipedia have deleted my article. How can i put my company information on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKTASK (talkcontribs) 17:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the user, who seems to be only here to promote their company. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC).
Blocked on account of your User name (which can be remedied) and because Wikipedia is not media for explanation of companies. Rather, what is essential is content written about the company by people completely unrelated to the company. Without seeing what you wrote, guessing that the company has not reached that level of notability. David notMD (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair use quotationEdit

Hi, I want to ask how much text can we quote? [Like X person said "...........".] How much text are we allowed to quote from what a person said?--SharabSalam (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! See MOS:QUOTE. Use common sense. If more experienced editors say you are overdoing it, either take heed or if you disagree, ask a few more experienced editors. If more than three experienced editors say you are overdoing it but not a single one comes to your defence, you are probably overdoing it. Be BOLD with what you think is good for the encyclopedia and just wait for others to disagree with you, so you can discuss it with them and reach a consensus on what's best. Usedtobecool ✉️  18:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello again, I'd missed the copyright part the first time, WP:NFCCEG doesn't specify how much, just says it must be attributed with inline citations and put in quotations, and any deviations from the source must be clearly marked. As such, the answer is still the same as before though. Read WP:NFCCEG, especially the "Text" subsection and again use common sense. Copyvio is taken seriously, and could get an editor immediately banned. So, if it's too long, and you're unsure, better to propose it on the talk page or ask an experienced editor, in each such case. Usedtobecool ✉️  18:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: Check WP:COPYQUOTE for guidance on quotations and fair use. RudolfRed (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool and RudolfRed: can you see if this is an appropriate use of quotations?--19:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that one has copyright. Even if it did, I suppose those quotes are short enough to be acceptable. Usedtobecool ✉️  20:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't forget the inline citations though. Usedtobecool ✉️  20:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Street successEdit

Oh what a blessing, oh what a lesson that the street could bring don't wanna miss it just like child lean a.c.d 123 as I step to the street o Lord have mercy, street success Lord never make me ckik buket gat make money filled ma pocket (yeah) street might be hard but never too bad just wanna find away to succeed now, street is rugged money matter you get I get that's it better you been through I been through you know how it is money talking buisness — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zealmoses (talkcontribs) 18:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse is a place to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia, and your User page is a place for you to provide information about yourself that will help people understand your qualifications and interests in being a Wikipedia editor. David notMD (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The letter "m" in edit summariesEdit

I seem to have been noticing the letter "m" with nothing else at the top of page histories. I was going to ask what this meant, but have now discovered that it indicates a minor edit. Assuming I've correctly perceived that nothing else is there (I'll be checking on this), does this mean that I don't have to enter an edit summary if I mark my edit as minor? Or are editors who do this remiss and should enter an edit summary as well? Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roy McCoy: It is good practice to always include an edit summary, even for minor edits. See WP:ES for the guidance. RudolfRed (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Roy McCoy. Please read Help:Minor edit for information about when and when not to mark an edit as minor. I agree with RudolphRed that best practice is to provide an edit summary for every edit. These can be very brief, like "typo" or "rvv", which means "revert vandalism". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks RudolfRed and Cullen. I'll note with interest possible future pages with "m" only, but in any event will avoid posting edits without summaries myself. –Roy McCoy (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


Hello. From what I am reading, it seems like if a logo for a business is uploaded with the permission of the owner, there are no restrictions on re-use. Doesn't this mean that anything (for example the Nike Logo or a a famous picture of a celebrity) that is on Wikipedia can just be used by anyone, anywhere, legally? I find this hard to believe.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertgomez87 (talkcontribs) 20:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Robertgomez87: Some items on Wikipedia are used under WP:FAIRUSE, and are not licensed for reuse. RudolfRed (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Robertgomez87, On occasion, the copyright holder of a logo will freely license the logo so that I can be reused although almost always with the attribution restriction. However, this is extremely rare for large well-known companies and almost always involves small relatively new companies. In some cases they may know what they're doing but in many cases my guess is they don't. The vast majority are fair use, and should not be copied or used elsewhere. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation item without article linkEdit

On a disambiguation page, it is possible to add an item that does not have its own article, within WP policy? I recently had an edit reverted because there was no article to link to, correctly I think; I then made an addition to a main article first, which was OK. Now, I would like to similarly add a usage to a dab page where again there is no main article. Specifically, I would like to add culinary usage to Gigot, see Talk:Gigot. How strict is the WP policy on requiring a main article to link to on a dab page? Would a reference in the body of an existing article do? Or add a description with no WP link but a good cite? --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in HollywoodEdit

The page is locked from editing. I have noticed that fictional characters are listed as historical characters. Also names are misspelled. I am curious if the page can be unlocked so I can edit it? If not, can someone correct these mistakes? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talkcontribs) 23:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Samurai Kung fu Cowboy, to get that to happen, make edit requests at the article talk page. Be clear (replace x-line in section-a with y-line), and be sure to provide a reliable published secondary source for every fact you propose. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Retitle a draft (on the one concerning contradiction in Poetics 14)Edit

Is it possible to rename a draft? "Problem" might be better than "contradiction," and omit "the"? (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The draft can be moved to Problem of Poetics chapters 13 and 14. You can click the "Move" tab at the page top of the draft, change the title, and click the "Move page" button.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
You can do that, but honestly, why? The title can be corrected when it is moved to mainspace and prior to that time, the title doesn't matter. It isn't indexed anywhere, and the title is not relative to whether or not it will make an acceptable encyclopedia article. John from Idegon (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok. No reason to do it since it's irrelevant to the decision.Cdg1072 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello again, Cdg1072. The eventual article title, if the draft is accepted, should definitely mention Aristotle. Otherwise, the title is a confusing jumble. But focus on the article content at this time, not the title. That comes later. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I see what you mean, Aristotle should be in the title because it's not common knowledge that he wrote the Poetics.Cdg1072 (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

blocked by another userEdit

Hello, I am a rabbit vet trying to update the page on myxomatosis by adding a section on North America. There are currently sections on Ireland, Australia, France, Britian, and New Zealand. However my content (though perfectly accurate) was removed and I received an email saying that North America didn't deserve a special mention. This makes no sense, my patients are dying from this disease and situation is very different here than in Europe and Australia for multiple reasons. How do I respond to this person? He threatens to block me if I add the section back in. I wrote back in the same window but got no reply. Below is the conversation:

Your edits to Myxomatosis Welcome and thanks for your recent contributions to the myxamotosis article. However, you shouldn't just revert the contributions of other editorsto your preferred verison. Nor should you make edits without reading the article. You have done this in your latest edits, and as a result you have duplicated large amounts of information. There are a few Wikipedia policies you should familiarise yourself with. The most important are WP:BRD and WP:3RR. In short form, when you make an edit and someone removes it, don't just reinstate it. Instead, start a discussion on the article talk page. If you reinstate the material more than three times, you will be blocked from editing. As far as your actual edits, they are good, but this is a global English encyclopaedia, not a US encylopaedia. See WP:GLOBAL. The US isn't exceptional and doesn't deserve special mention just for being the US. As a general rule of thumb, if the article couldn't handle material of the same level of detail for all 120 odd nations on the planet, don't add it for the US. IOW, this article clearly wouldn't be readable if we had hundreds of words on the disease in Canada, Mexico, Slovakia, Fiji etc. So unless there is something highly notable about the US, please don't create a US specific section. We have sections on Australia in this article because it is commonly and notably held up as a globally relevant example of succesful biological control. The treatment and spread of the disease in US domestic/feral rabbits isn't particularly differrent from anywhere else on the planet and so isn't obviously notable. That the disease is native to the US is notable and has been retained in the appropriate parts of the article. Thanks for yourcontributions, keep up the good work, but please familiarise yourself with the rules of Wikipedia to avoid irritating other contributors andpotentially being nlocked from editingMark Marathon (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mark, Sorry if I am a bit clumsy with editing, this is the first time I have tried it. I was in the middle of clarifying some points, and got called away for an hour. I see now that I should not do editing on the live site, but on a word document on by computer so that I can insert the finished product all at once. I am a veterinarian that works with rabbits. My patients are currently dying from this disease. I was trying to add a section on North America because no one here knows about the disease. It has gotten so much more press in Australia and England! I am certainly not trying to remove content, just add to it. But in reorganizing it I have incurred your wrath I see. Why can I not add a section on North America? There already exists sections on Australia, New Zealand, England, France, and Ireland. Are we not worthy? I did not put it under the "population control' heading because the disease here is endemic. Please respond. I do want to add a section on North America, but don't want to be blocked by you. Thank you, Rabbit Vet (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit Vet (talkcontribs)

The place to discuss the article on Myxomatosis is its talk page: Talk:Myxomatosis. David Biddulph (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Rabbit Vet, what you do for a living is completely irrelevant here, as is what you know. Encyclopedias are tertiary. So take your knowledge of veterinary medicine, use it to find reliable sources, and make arguments at the article talk page supported by those sources. We have very strong sourcing requirements for human medicine, and to be honest, I'm not sure to what extent, if any, they apply to veterinary medicine and perhaps another host can clarify that for us. Experts are very welcome here, but remember that your expertise cannot be used as a source. Your far greater familiarity with the literature is where your expertise will benefit the encyclopedia. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
... and please don't compose a new article in Word and then replace content on the Wikipedia page. This can cause problems with Wikipedia markup, and is likely to be unpopular with other editors. It is much better to make small edits (after having discussed them on the talk page, as recommended above) to gradually improve the article. Dbfirs 07:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Best part to be a genuine Wikipedian.Edit

How to be a genuine Wikipedian ? After how many times of edits to be considered an elite Wikipedia editor ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandria76 (talkcontribs) 03:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a video game. You do not level up by gaining more experience points here. John from Idegon (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
To be fair there are these Wikipedia:Service awards but they are only used for fun. Otherwise John from Idegon is correct. MarnetteD|Talk 04:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Alexandria76. Everyone who makes at least one productive edit is a "genuine Wikipedian". The quality of your edits is vastly more important than the quantity of your edits. It is far better to make ten excellent edits than a thousand mediocre edits. We do not have elite editors, but rather we have respected editors who are recognized as people who are working hard to improve this encyclopedia. Some of those people may have 1000 edits while others may have 50,000 edits. People look at the quality of the articles that you have created or expanded, and how helpful you have been, and whether or not you work to resolve disputes and help create consensus. This is a collaborative project to create a free encylopedia, not an MMPORG. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

How to I move my first article from Draft to Wikipedia?Edit

I have published my first article. It is in Draft wikipedia. How do i move my article from Draft wikipedia to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintan P Bhagat (talkcontribs) 05:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Chintan P Bhagat: It might help if you post a link to your draft. But generally you don't move article you wrote from the Draft: space to article space. You should just insert this code: {{subst:submit}} at the top of your draft article and wait for some editor to validate your submission. --CiaPan (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)