Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1016

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1010

←

Archive 1014

→

How to Publish Pages

Hi, I am a new user/editor, I want to get some direction on how to publish an article or a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igweat (talk • contribs) 04:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Igweat. Please start by reading and studying Your first article. Feel free to return to the Teahouse if you have any follow-up questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Unable to Publish Changes Within Sandbox User Page

Hello, I have been able to publish my bibliography in the article talk page and into my own talk page, but when I hit the button to "Publish Changes" in my user page in my sandbox, I keep getting an HTTP 404 error. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mleggett8 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It sounds as if you have a faulty internet connection. I see that you have subsequently been able to make an edit. Let us know if you think the problem is not with your own internet. Dbfirs 07:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

What is needed to get something posted on Wikipedia?

What is needed to get something posted on Wikipedia? I would like Ball Road Anaheim, California namesake Hezekiah Wright Ball recognized if possible. How would I get this done and what is need with this content. Marvin Duane Ball Great Great grandson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballroad (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ballroad. Wikipedia is based on what has already been reported on a subject in reliable sources like books, newspapers, magazines and journals. We cannot go by family histories or reminiscences. It is up to you to find the wp:Reliable sources backing up the material you want to add to an article about your family.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ballroad. I'm terribly sorry - I was monitoring newly-created articles and had converted one to a draft on the grounds that it was inadequately cited (and also non-encyclopaedic) when I thought it sounded familiar, so came back here to check. I'm afraid I've just moved it to Draft:Ball Road Anaheim,California, where you're welcome to continue working on it and then submit it for review, when ready. Be advised that you must cite published material that anyone else can obtain and verify. Citing just the name of a local historian who 'knows stuff' is not sufficient. Only properly published and reliable material can be used. Might I suggest you look at a few similar articles here to gain a feel for how a Wikipedia article is laid out and constructed. See also Your First Article and The Wikipedia Adventure for an interactive tour of the basica of editing? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Is the idea an article about Ball Road, with a history section mentioning Hezekiah? Or is it an article about Hezekiah, mentioning that a road is named after him? Either way, need references in support of content. What you know to be true is not sufficient. David notMD (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: The editor immediately submitted this draft for review, without making any significant changes, or taking any of the advice offered here. Unsurprisingly, it was immediately rejected by reviewer, John from Idegon. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This has come up a couple time before at the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 940#Ball Road Anaheim, California for reference. I don't think anything has really changed since the subject was first discussed back in December 2014. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Changed place names

What is the policy for using names of places that have changed since the time of an activity described? The example that brought this to mind is this text: "visited Nur-Sultan in January 2017" in the Economy of Kazakhstan article. In all of 2017, the city of Nur-Sultan was called Astana. Kdammers (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kdammers: Best thing to do is to say something like "visited Nur-Saltan, then known as Astana, in January 2017" or you could simply say "visited Astana in January 2017" this provided a wikilink to Nur-Saltan but displays Astana. I hope that helps, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd advise using "visited Astana (now known as Nur-Sultan) in January 2017" --Khajidha (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree (with the second one). Use the correct name of the place at the time of the visit, with a courtesy parenthetical/note/link to current name on the first occurrence if you like. This extra verbage sees less necessary now that PagePreviews occurs for logged-out users, no? Or is there no equivalent for mobile? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Creating a Yoga School Page

Hey Wikipedians,

I had a question before I myself start editing on Wikipedia. I have to create a Yoga School page on Wikipedia. The yoga school is approved by yoga alliance. Do let me know if anything I have to take care before writing an article.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howravi (talk • contribs) 07:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Howravi. When you say that you "have to" create an article about this yoga school, that raises major red flags among experienced Wikipedia editors. The short answer is "No, you don't". If you have to do something, that usually indicates that it is your job to do so. If that is the case, then you must immediately comply with Wikipedia's mandatory Paid editing disclosure. Make compliance the goal of your very next edits. You must also comply with the guideline on editing with a conflict of interest. Next, read Your first article and Wikipedia's notability guideline for businesses and organizations. You should use the Articles for Creation process to write a draft which can be reviewed by experienced editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Howravi and welcome to the Teahouse. No-one "has to create" pages on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia that has articles only on topics that have been written about elsewhere. If your yoga school has been written about in independent WP:Reliable sources, then you should collect those sources, summarise them in your own words, and use the sources as references according to WP:Referencing for beginners. You might like to read WP:Your first article first. If you cannot find such sources, then you will have a very difficult and frustrating time here if you try to write an article based on your own knowledge because that is not Wikipedia is designed for. Best wishes. Dbfirs 07:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Howravi: If you mean "school" as in a physical place in a retail environment that has yoga classes for fee-paying students, it is unlikely to be notable per the policies linked above, any more than the neighboring karate schools, nail salons, juice bars, etc. Or do you mean "school" in the sense of a style and methodology of yoga, like those listed at List of yoga schools (and which is not already listed there)? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

How to response if someone left a message on my talk page?

Someone left a message on my talk page. I want to know how can I response to that message. Is it editing the source then Publish Changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyzii28 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Shyzii28. You edit the source, indent your reply with a colon (:), and submit. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 01:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, at the end of your comment type four of ~. This 'signs' the comment with your User name. David notMD (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

New page - gathering/adding information

I am sure this question gets asked a lot...

Will edits in progress, under a user's sandbox, get deleted after a limited period, or is it just the main article 'name' that is removed if the article cannot meet all requirements?

Nearing (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse, Nearing. You can keep content in your sandbox page or pages for as long as you wish, with just a few caveats. For example, copyrighted content, material that might seriously infringe our policy on biographies of living people or material not directly relevant to enhancing this encyclopaedia, such as an editor treating it as a free webhost to write about themselves, or anything unlawful. Draft articles will only get deleted after 6 months of inactivity, again with the same caveats described above. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Nick Moyes. This helps a lot.

Nearing (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Why is citing so hard?

Hey! 😊

I find that for an encyclopedia that values citing sources so much, making citations is too tedious and complex. There are 23 templates for citing sources depending on their types, as evidenced by Wikipedia:CS1 § Templates. Then, there is {{Citation}}, which apparently does everything that the others do, but it is unloved and missing from the Wikipedia:CS1 § Templates list.

So, question 1: I was thinking, why don't I press the edit button and add it to that list?

Question 2: Why has nobody ever thought of deleting all the templates that start with "Cite" and use {{Citation}} only?

Side-question: It seems Wikipedia loves profilfration of templates. For instance, I use two templates in this message: "Tl" and "Section link". "Tl" has many siblings: Tlx, tlp, tlf, tnull and God knows what else. Why nobody has merged those? As for section link, why would even one need to have {{Section link}}? Why doesn't [[Wikipedia:CS1#Templates]] generate "Wikipedia:CS1 § Templates"?

flowing dreams (talk page) 12:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

flowing dreams As this is a volunteer project used by people from all over the world, many people have created templates for the same purposes. If you feel that some templates could be eliminated or merged, you are free to propose that at WP:TFD. Given that many people make use of them and many of them are entrenched in hundreds of thousands of articles, be prepared for a long and arduous process, though. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I know that, but I don't suppose any of them had anything to do with developing Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0, right? flowing dreams (talk page) 12:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Q1 – {{Citation}} is Help:Citation Style 2, so would not appear in a list of CS1 templates.

Q2 – It's been thought of, frequently! CS1 templates are an arcane black art which you will only fully understand after years of study, then they'll be changed. {{Citation}} lets the computer work out the details (what a lazy man like me prefers) and even adds the referencing for you without being told.

As regards a proliferation vs a monolith; this is an argument that turns up in all branches of computer science. Consider the UNIX philosophy of small programs that do one thing well versus the M$ monolith where one image does everything. Then do a bug count! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Martin of Sheffield. I hope you don't mind me adjusting your message's indentation, since I wanted to reply to 331dot too.

Q1: {{Citation}} supports CS1 too. It has |mode=cs1.

Q2: Are they? They seem to use the same infrastructure.

flowing dreams (talk page) 12:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Q1: In my experience this parameter is rarely used. I know that in the Lua CS2 uses CS1 code, but every case I can think of {{citation}} is used in its default CS2 form.

Q2: {{cite web}}, {{cite magazine}}, and {{cite journal}} (for example) may use the same infrastructure, but pick the wrong one and you'll be promptly put down by an editor or a bot.

All IMHO of course! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. 👍 flowing dreams (talk page) 13:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Just because all those templates exist, it doesn't mean you have to use them. Using the standard editor (not the visual one), I have a drop-down with four choices that appears on the toolbar above the edit window; I use "cite web" almost all of the time. I'm not sure if this is a standard feature or if you have to turn on a gadget. Filling out the resulting window (and using the auto-fill when it works) is about as simple as it gets, with some annoyances in date formats, etc. Filling out a template manually isn't really that hard either. It certainly is far less time-consuming than the actual researching of the cite. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Huh! Really? I truly and sincerly thought just because all those template exist, I must use them when appropriate! It was a logical conclusion: They were created, hence somebody saw a use in them! flowing dreams (talk page) 11:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes Citation guesses wrong about which kind of work you're citing; use "cite xxx" and "mode = CS2" in those cases. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The unchanged rendering of [[Wikipedia:CS1#Templates]] as Wikipedia:CS1#Templates is determined by MediaWiki which is also used by thousands of other wikis. The '#' is part of URL#Syntax and has to be in the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CS1#Templates for browsers to go to that anchor. It's a well-known feature on the Internet so it's natural that MediaWiki displays it. I suppose there could have been a MediaWiki setting for a wiki to choose another display. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Help me

Help to make my wikipedia visable on goohle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khetwadichaganraj (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Khetwadichaganraj Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Google does not index Wikipedia user sandboxes, which is where what you wrote is. If you want it to be an article, you can use Articles for Creation to submit your draft for review, but as it stands now it would not be accepted, as it is completely unsourced. I would suggest that you read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial before attempting to create an article, which is the hardest task on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Need help creating a Wikipedia article for Jack Kehoe

I need help creating a Wikipedia article for Jack Kehoe, who was portrayed by Sean Connery in the film "The Molly Maguires" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Molly_Maguires_(film). My wife and children are his direct descendants and we would like his story to be available on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcknecht123 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jcknecht123: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to merely tell about a subject(be it a person or something else). As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has articles about subjects shown with significant coverage in published independent reliable sources that show how the subject meets the Wikipedia definition of notability. An editor's word, personal recollections, or documents in private hands are not acceptable for this purpose. It certainly seems like Mr. Kehoe might merit an article, but you will need to have the published sources available. You may wish to read Your First Article for more information. If you have the sources, you can create a draft using Articles for Creation that another editor can review and offer feedback. If you don't feel comfortable attempting to write such an article yourself, you can post at the appropriate area of Requested Articles, though I caution that the backlog there is such that it may be a long time before any article is written. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Jcknecht123, another possibility (you still need reliable sources) is adding to the Molly Maguires article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I've created what we call a redirect, Jack Kehoe (Molly Maguires). It's not an article, but it's something. Jack Kehoe was already taken. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Help me

My id is getting deleted help me please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khetwadichaganraj (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; if you mean your account, accounts cannot be deleted, though they can be blocked. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Your User page is supposed to be about you and your intentions as a Wikipedia editor. Hence the proposed Speedy deletion of what you have created. If you want to create an article, one place is your Sandbox. David notMD (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Plz help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khetwadichaganraj (talk • contribs)

Khetwadichaganraj Please put follow up comments in the same section instead of creating a new section. Click "edit" next to the section header. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Khetwadichaganraj I think you have confused creating an article with creating an account. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It is your userpage has nominated to speedy deletion because it violates our policies (please read this). It does not affect your account. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 16:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Help me before my page get deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khetwadichaganraj (talk • contribs) 16:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Khetwadichaganraj, if you want the contents of your user page to be preserved, you can copy them to User:Khetwadichaganraj\sandbox. Maproom (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Maproom: - I assume that you mean User:Khetwadichaganraj/sandbox (which is a subpage of User:Khetwadichaganraj), rather than User:Khetwadichaganraj\sandbox? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I've transferred the content to their sandbox. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Citation bot requires OAuth every time

Why does Wikipedia citation bot (WP:UCB) require WP:OAuth every time I use it? I know there was a stir regarding the tool a while back but...?

@Waddie96: This bot related question is better posed to the bot maintainer - Martin Smith, on his talk page User talk:Smith609. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

help, i fix a bug

I want to create an account and to edit impose, but if you try to correct it with a new system that only gives me an error message as soon as they hit the save button reading, as you edit could not be processed due to the loss of data session. "Because of my name" Al175an "mean, but he is not eating prior to logging on to one, indeed, can not, what do I talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.235.3 (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Your question is not clear enough for me to understand. Please try again. And please do not post the same question in other parts of Wikipedia. Stick to just asking here, please. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As is now trying to create, and the other called "Al175an 2". But this does not seem to assist the error is still time to try to make reviews! Please help fast, I do not know what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.2.76 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello again IP-hopping editor. As far as I can tell, User:172.56.2.76 and/or User:172.58.235.3 are the same person and in your confusion you have created User:Al175an and User:Al175an2 and User:Al175an 2. Please do not create any more accounts! Slow down, please, and try asking your question again. Just ask it here - not anywhere else. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I will need help or can not create another important

− − good. let me ask again. I would like to use an archive to edit Wikipedia. once I logged into my Al175an account, I was careful to edit, but once I clicked save button, it gave me an error message about losing my session data. Then I created another article called Al175an 2, and that has the same results. I have not reproduced one, please help me fix the bug, thanks in advance.

− − By the way, I am from China, and is not limited to expect good quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.2.76 (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Al175an: We have no way to know without more info if you are losing session data from being in China, due to censorship, or because of issues with your browser cache. I can't help with the former, but I did find this info about Firefox. [[1]] There's also this Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_117#Loss_of_session_data You can also post your question at the Village Pump, where they are more technical. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, IP editor/Al175an. I am very sorry I did not understand your first question. Thank you for persevering. I think Timtempleton has given good advice, especially to ask at our Village Pump. You say you are in China, but your two IP addresses geolocate to different parts of America. So, I assume you must be using a VPN or Proxy server? My guess is that this might be the cause of your loss of session data, but I do not have enough technical knowledge to be certain. Do please ask again at the Village Pump. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding an image of a living person

I would like to add an image to the article Earring. It is a picture of my sister ca. 1958; she is still living. See Talk:Earring#History_1950s-60s for more details & a temporary upload of the image in question. The image will no longer be © by the original photographer, but I believe there are still issues. I know from past experience the copyright/permissions hurdles are very strict.

1) Must the iamge be uploaded to Commons (not really appropriate for this one), or can it just be embbedded in the article?
2) I would appreciate help in passing the standard copyright/permission requirements (point me at the appropriate help pages is fine)
3) Since the person in the image is still living, do I need to obtain formal (written?) permission from her? Any other related issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D A Patriarche (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I see some of the general issues were recently covered under Image Upload above. Don't bother dup'ing the Help topics pointers there (my question #2), I will follow them up, unless you see an issue with my image not covered in the above post. Please do help with my questions 1 & 3. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The article Earring already has several pictures of earrings being worn. Why do you think it needs another, particularly one of questionable copyright status? If you have no evidence to the contrary, you must assume that the copyright belongs to the photographer. Maproom (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

There is an issue IMO re the 20th century history of ear piercing, covered in the Talk page section Talk:Earring#History_1950s-60s. However, reviewing my own post there, I realize the image would be at best a "primary source", at worst "OR"; what's needed to support my argument is the usual good secondary written source (so far I heven't found one). I think I uploaded the picture just to support my argument on the talk page in the absence of a good cite; I agree it would not add anything much to the article.

The section does need additional & better cites (the movie Grease is hardly a reliable source!), mostly already tagged, but that's a separate issue.

Question withdrawn! Thanks, --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Technical, getting things in the sandbox from the live article, and back again, when there are multiply-referenced footnotes.

This is, like a post just above, coming up in Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act. The resolution of the issue with Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Problems is that it will be modified, possibly in the sandbox. (If it is modified in the sandbox, the article will be reverted to before I got to it, and then eventually the sandboxed section will go back to the article.)

So I tried pulling the section to the sandbox, Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act/sandbox, by a transfer--source editor to source editor, but as you can see, many of the references didn't transfer.

I also tried the transfer by visual editor on the article to source editor in the sandbox, and that was even worse--no references transferred.

My guess is this problem is coming from repeated use of the same references in the article.

a)Do you know how to fix (loss of references forward transfer to sandbox)?

Note that I am concerned also with the back transfer to the article--the same reference appearing multiple times in the list of references.

b)Do you have a fix for that?

I've also noted the sandbox does not seem to support a visual editor, which seems like it will be some learning, and a real pain in the neck where I have multiply-used references. (The visual editor seems to handle that all automatically.)

c)Do you have a fix for that?

d)Do you know why the heck the visual editor option isn't available in the sandbox, like it is on the article itself?

Note: this question has also been posed to the team on the ACA article, here: Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#"Problems"_Section_Copied_Into_Sandbox_to_Prepare_for_Rollback--_But_there_is_a_problem_with_many_of_the_references_transferring--please_advise

Note also, I will be away much of today. I will not probably be able to read your responses, and ask follow-up questions, until tommorrow.NormSpier (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know whether you have a good reason for editing in a sandbox, but, in general, it is better to make smaller edits to the live article, a section at a time. This allows other editors to check edits as they are made, rather than replacing the whole article at once. Dbfirs 20:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier, about the refs, the error is to do with the reusability of citations. When a ref is used multiple times, it is named and defined once, and in all other instances, it's only called by name. The software compares the names and pulls definition at the time of rendering the page for the reader. When you take a chunk out from an article, you might take citations with definitions and break the name calls in the main article, or you might also take citations with name calls alone, in which case they will be working just fine in the main article but will appear broken in the sandbox. If any cites have broken in the main article, you need to move the citations with definitions to the main article and use name calls only in the sandbox. If you do that, it will continue to appear broken in the sandbox but when you move it all back to the main article, it will assimilate nicely since the name calls will have definitions already present in the article. This is, provided you don't change names of refs when in the sandbox. As an example, you have <ref name=":5" /> in the sandbox which is broken but will fix itself when you move it back to main article because the article already has <ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/eligibility/estate-recovery/index.html|title=Estate Recovery and Liens|website=www.medicaid.gov|language=en-us|access-date=2019-08-10}}</ref>. You could fix the sandbox by replacing all instances of the former type with the latter type, but that would introduce redundancies that would require fixing again when you move it back to the article. Hope this helps! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 21:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier, the Visual Editor works in sandboxes. I don't know why you were having trouble with yours. NormSpier and Usedtobecool, when you copy a piece of an article to your sandbox using Visual Editor it will bring the full reference along even if you aren't copying the piece that has the definition in the wikitext. The problems happen when you try to move it back. VE has no way of knowing that a reference named ":5" or "Smith" in your sandbox refers to the same references that are in the article. So it will rename the references to ":51" or "Smith1" and you will have duplicated references. This can't be fixed easily with VE - you have to remove the references and re-add them, or use the text editor. Our students in the WikiEd program have problems with this and there are requests in to fix it. Even for large changes to an article you should work on a small piece at a time. Use a placeholder for the reference in your sandbox, and wait to add the reference when you put it back in the article. Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier, you are trying to use a sandbox in Talk space at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/sandbox. That's not what Talk space is for. Create another sandbox in your user space and work on it there. But in small pieces. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Good luck. You are working to make Wikipedia better, but, as was said above, you might do it better by making smaller changes. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

StarryGrandma, the visual editor isn't enabled in the Talk: namespace, and I think that NormSpier is specifically looking at a talk page sandbox. A couple of WikiProjects use {{VEFriendly}} to get around that, but it is an officially unsupported workaround – might work, might not, no guarantees. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, user:WhatamIdoing. I think we're OK. :StarryGrandma left me a more complete message here: User_talk:NormSpier#Your_sandbox_problem, telling me to move to a sandbox outside of talk. I will try creating that soon, and verify that the footnotes transfer, and everything else looks O.K. I will get back, of course, if something doesn't look right.NormSpier (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi user:WhatamIdoing pinging: user:Usedtobecool and user:StarryGrandma (if they are interested). I'm going with the account of user:StarryGrandma, as she indicated visual editor to visual editor (to and fro) is the best / easiest way to do it, and she sounds like she has most experience with the issue because of involvement with WikiEd. I have in fact followed her instructions for the forward transfer to sandbox, doing visual (ACA article) to visual (sandbox) for the section that I am trying to retain after rollback, modify, and reinsert to the ACA article, here, User:NormSpier/PPACAsandbox1 and voila: all of the references have transferred successfully. (It must be that the visual editor, besides being just easier to use than source, also manages references much more automatically.)

Now, as I understand it, when I transfer back from the sandbox to the article (which will be just the one section "Problems"), there will be duplicates of any reference also in the ACA article, which will have to be cleaned up manually. My thought is to clean them up in the visual editor right after I bring the section back to the ACA article. There should not be more than a handful of duplicate references, because my other two sections and other minor changes will be rolled back (permanently). That is, it's mostly in my other two sections that the duplicated references occur. Someone can tell me if I have any of this wrong. Thanks everyone for your help.NormSpier (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You will notice that other editors have made improvements to the article. When you copy back from the sandbox, please do not undo or overwrite their edits. Dbfirs 20:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

What's the deal on how many times an editor, different each time, maybe every week, comes in to challenge content.

The specific case this is coming up with is Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Problems which is a section that I had added maybe a month ago. As far as I can tell, no one is adding content on this article at this point except for me. I have had no comments on the material from people who built the article. At a point, user:Newslinger came in, and had a lot of criticisms (many valid), and also seeming to want to yank all of the content, rather than have me adjust tone, etc. We went as far as RFC, and I think, in the RFC, that his position now is that this content ("problems" section only--what I put it was originally 3 sections plus a little--I'm dropping the intent to have the remaining in) can stay, but adjustments to matters he pointed out (judged easy to fix by me) will be done.

So, as far as I can tell, user:Newslinger and I are now in agreement on the content.

But, how do I know that next week, someone completely different, (likely a person who has not built the article, and also is non-expert in the subject matter) will not come in and challenge, and we have to start all over again. (For user:Newslinger and I both, it was quite a bit of work involved in the challenge and resolution. And I appreciate his work on the matter, by the way.)

And the week after.

And the week after that....

Note: I will be away the rest of the day, so it will be probably tomorrow that I can see your answers, and ask any follow up questions.NormSpier (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@NormSpier: Hi there, welcome to the Teahouse. There two things you can do:

Gain thoughts before you significantly contribute to an article. Post on the talk page your proposed changes and ping any users who have significantly contributed to the article and gain their thoughts.
Stick to policy. People won't (usually) challenge your addition if it is backed up by reliable sources per WP:V, is written neutrally and you don't have a conflict of interest or are being paid by the subject.

I see you already have a good number of edits, so the best way to improve from here is probably discussion with others (which is what you are doing) and getting yourself deeply and thoroughly familiar with the policies. Best wishes, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is, you don't know if someone will come along and edit or challenge the content you added. It is up to you to monitor the article for any changes and discuss the issues with other editors. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Which means putting the articles you care about on your personal Watchlist, and checking that every time you access Wikipedia. I watch about 25, some people watch hundreds. David notMD (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I currently have 16,020 pages on my watchlist, David notMD. The vast majority are completely inactive. NormSpier, the answer to your question is "as often as any editor acting in good faith chooses to challenge content". If details of health care policy gain greater attention in political discussions in the U.S., you can expect much more attention to the article. Perhaps daily. Perhaps hourly. This is how Wikipedia works. If you haven't had the chance yet, please read Wikipedia:Ownership of content, and take the good advice there to heart. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Cullen328That you have 16,020 pages on your watchlist leads to a natural question about the informal structure of what goes on here, which is opaque and probably frustrating to newcomers. I am guessing you have about 500 editors each "patrolling" in some sense about as many pages as you are monitoring, so that every page is patrolled by someone. Thus, a patroller will show up one day (who may not have contributed or be expert in the topic of the patrolled page) and, due to the overworked nature of the patroller, may have to be a little broad-brush in actions. Note this is my conjecture only, so it would be fun to learn more from you. Also, it is not a complaint--I see Wikipedia has like 7 million pages, and it needs some way to keep things from going to heck. (Pinging user:Newslinger for the option to chime in.)NormSpier (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier, the fact that you have reached consensus about content on the talk page with another editor means that you will be in a strong position to challenge any major changes to the consensus, but changes will be made in the future. They always are! That's one of the strong points of Wikipedia. If you want to publish your exact version, you will need to publish it elsewhere. Having said that, do keep the page on your watchlist, and challenge any changes that are not improvements, but use the talk page to reach consensus. See WP:BRD for the process. It seems to work. Dbfirs 20:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Dbfirs, I believe you have addressed your remarks to the wrong editor. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 21:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Oops! Thank you for that correction. I've corrected the link above. Dbfirs 21:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

New users' contributions

I used to use the link Special:Contributions/newbies to list new users' contributions. But today when I tried, it gave the error message "User account "Newbies" is not registered." Has the facility been removed, or is there some other way to get at it? --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Gronk Oz. I wasn't aware of that as a way of once monitoring new editors' edits. However, the way to do it nowadays is to go to Special:Recentchanges. There, you'll find there are various filters you can select, including those by 'Newcomers' or 'Unregistered' users. I hope you find this of use. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, @Nick Moyes: it does allow me to find what I am after. To be picky though, it does not seem to allow me to store a shortcut that includes the parameters. I prefer to fine-tune the search, then store the link on my User page where I can easily use it again and again. For instance, to get new users I want to add the parameter "userExpLevel=newcomer" to give Special:RecentChanges?userExpLevel=newcomer. But adding that parameter breaks the link. Do you know of a way to do that? (If not, what you gave me already will do the job.) --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz, you can definitely store the filter settings for later use. It's not hugely clear that you can do this, but see this help page. I find the easiest way is simply to save the URL from the browser bar and create an external link somewhere where I can access it. In my case I mostly use this setting: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?damaging=likelybad%3Bverylikelybad&goodfaith=maybebad%3Blikelybad%3Bverylikelybad&hidebots=1&hidepreviousrevisions=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&namespace=0&limit=500&days=7&damaging__likelybad_color=c3&damaging__verylikelybad_color=c4&goodfaith__maybebad_color=c3&goodfaith__likelybad_color=c4&goodfaith__verylikelybad_color=c5&lastRevision__hidelastrevision_color=c1&title=Special:RecentChanges&highlight=1&urlversion=2 I have this readily available as a link at the top of every page, via a userscript called bookmarknav.js

Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Perfect - thanks, Nick Moyes. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

meta:Tech/News/2019/34 says: "Special:Contributions/newbies will no longer be working. This is because of performance reasons. It showed edits by new accounts. You can see this in the recent changes feed instead. [2]" PrimeHunter (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought that had been turned off several years ago, in phab:T36659. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Newbies with uppercase "N" started showing the specific user there. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

article waiting for review

Good Evening,

I have a draft article awaiting review. It's been in this status since 8 July. I know this can take awhile, but we are fast approaching 3 months. Is this normal?

URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rita_M._Sambruna

Thanks! Sago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagolightly (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sagolightly: Hello. Please be patient. There are a lot of drafts awaiting review, and they are reviewed by volunteers. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 21:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Sagolightly (ec) Unfortunately, there are literally thousands of drafts awaiting review, and a limited number of volunteers that perform the reviews(which are done in no particular order). This amount of time is not unusual. You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sagolightly: Welcome to Wikipedia. You should continue to improve the draft while you are waiting. Read WP:YFA for guidance. In particular I notice that the references are bare URLs. See WP:REFB for how to do citations. You should also look for other sources to cite. RudolfRed (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

For this draft and your previously accepted Joseph Pesce, revise so that you are not repeating identical refs; instead, there is a method for showing repeat use of the same ref. I did two out of three for the Sambruna draft. David notMD (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Explicit Content Warning

I was reading the article about Wikipedia (linked from the Main Page) and read the section on Wikipedia's explicit content policy. I haven't visited any of the pages, but was wondering - are there any templates that place an explicit content warning at the top of the page?

Thanks, MrConorAE ( user | talk | contribs) 22:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, MrConorAE. If there are, they shouldn't be used. See WP:NODISCLAIMERS. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine! I clearly haven't noticed the WP:NODISCLAIMERS. MrConorAE ( user | talk | contribs) 23:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

unoffical facebook page by wikipedia is confusing the public and driving me crazy

Hello,

I am an admin of Llanerch Country Club. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llanerch_Country_Club?fbclid=IwAR1-uxSCpgEvXoLr6R_O5l3KHmKd2DIkQU8mhHPD0rKxb0XSTpGw468-t4U There has been an unofficial facebook page UNOFFICIAL FACEBOOK PAGE made off of the above Wikipedia page. It is confusing people looking for information as some information is incorrect. additionally, people are accidentally tagging, reviewing and checking into the unofficial page instead of our official page OFFICIAL FACEBOOK PAGE. Any help on how to fix this would be appreciated.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbmargera (talk • contribs) 20:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Kbmargera Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has no control over people who use Wikipedia information to create their own Facebook pages; you will need to address that using whatever processes Facebook has(such as verifying your 'official' status) With regards to inaccurate information in the article about your club, you are welcome to go to the article talk page and make a formal edit request detailing any changes you feel are needed. You will first need to make the formal declarations required by the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kbmargera: There's plenty of online advice available for you to deal with this problem, which has nothing to do with us. I suggest you Google "Facebooks unofficial organisation pages" and follow one of the 'how to' guide links you'll find there. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect and malicious redirect on listing

Hello,

There is an inaccurate and potentially reputation-damaging listing in Wikipedia about a company named Kannalife. Someone not connected to the company has created a "redirect" listing Medical Marijuana Inc as the listing from Kannalife. This is inaccurate information. How do I fix this listing and remove the redirect to Medical Marijuana Inc? Here is the revision history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KannaLife&action=history --- none of the names listed are affiliated with Kannalife Inc.

Please assist ASAP as the current information and redirect is malicious and false.

Oddly enough this listing ONLY shows up on a mobile search and device but not a desktop.

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgogos (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rgogos, welcome to the Teahouse. Your post is a little unclear but I guess you refer to the suggested pages when KannaLife is written in the search box of the mobile site without pressing enter. KannaLife Sciences Inc. was a redirect to Medical Marijuana, Inc. This caused the latter article to be one of the suggested pages. I have changed the redirect target to KannaLife. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

How to delete draft

I created one draft article but now want to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achint2182 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The sole author of a page can request deletion by adding {{Db-g7}} to the top of the page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted. Ruslik_Zero 18:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ruslik and David Biddulph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achint2182 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Content experts - losing interest

Dear friends, could someone please explain

Whether Wikipedia genuinely values contributions from content-experts?
How Wikipedia encourages ongoing contributions from content-experts?

First: I have read and completely understand WP:EXPERT.

However, I am finding there is a certain futility to this project, and I am losing interest.

It seems that, for any unit of time that experts could be spending directly improving the WP:VERifiable content of articles within their realm of expertise, they have to spend at least double, if not triple the time trying to reach a consensus - which really means, content-experts teaching non-content-experts about the content. Conveying complex topics to passive users of the encyclopaedia is the easy part. The challenge, and most laborious/futile part, is fending off relentless attempts to revert your efforts, and trying to negotiate a compromise with people who gain more satisfaction by continually 'throwing a spanner in the works' than by trying to better their own understanding of the material. It's a pretty tiresome process and makes me wonder why I bother trying to improve the encyclopaedia, when the attitude seems to be "It would be great if you could clean up our articles. But we're not going to help you fend off every Tom Dick and Harry who wants to troll you and your efforts. Maybe I don't have the resilience for this nonsense. Maybe I should just walk away and let certain misleading shambolic articles be someone elses problem. I came here to improve the encyclopaedia for the general public, not to deal with hordes of trolls.

Would appreciate comments. Thank you Vitreology talk 05:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia welcomes input from experts, not primarily because of their knowledge of the subject, but because they are most likely to spot errors and to know where to find WP:Reliable sources to correct these errors. Please go ahead and improve any misleading articles. There are many editors here who will support you if you base your edits on the best sources. Where the best sources disagree, we report both views. Dbfirs 06:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vitreology. You have been editing a long time, and I thank you for your contributions. 97% of your edits still stand and have not been reverted. And about 80% of your edits have been to article space. Those are very healthy statistics. Well done! If you could provide links to specific instances of relentless efforts to revert your edits and throw a spanner into the works, that would be helpful. Other experienced editors can then investigate and intervene if necessary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion is Talk:Pilocarpine#Refs2

Practice is variable with respect to treating ocular hypertension per the sources provided.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Didda the Queen of kashmir

How does quoting from or of the sole book in the world that covers the life and times of Didda the warrior Queen of kashmir become promotion ? . More so when the book Didda the warrior Queen of kashmir is published by the largest publication company in India and clearly categorised as HISTORICAL/NONFICTION?. Furthermore, the book has been hailed as a bestseller and widely covered in Indian media. Let me also share the fact that my grand mother was a direct decedent of the Lohar dynasty, most specefixally the niece of the last king of Poonch the earstwhile capital of Lohar dynasty.

No author that you have quoted in Didda has any specefic authority on Diida and no one has been able to write more than a few pages on her that too are copied from Rajtarangni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authorashishkaul (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Assuming we're talking about this [3], do you not see promotion (WP:PROMO) in langauge like "The most comprehensive and the only true compilation" and "the bestseller book 'Didda The Warrior Queen of Kashmir' by prominent media ptofessional Ashish Kaul. Ashish kaul had spent 6 long years in research across undivided India and Iran."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I have left my own observations on this matter in response to the OP's statement on their own talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

One must of course factor in that Ashish Kaul is a trailblazer and a maverick business leader across media and entertainment spectrum. He is also the representative of a brave new breed of multilingual writers. Ashish’s Hindi novel on Kashmir titled Refugee Camp has been extremely well-received. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

why my article got declined

please help me. why my article got declined I'm not understanding. I'm new at wiki page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Girltalks (talk • contribs)

Girltalks Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It was declined due to not having inline citations. You have citations, but they are all at the bottom of the page and it is not clear what citation goes with what information. If you look at other articles, you will see small numbers next to many sentences or paragraphs, these are links to the citation for that information. To learn how to do this, you can read Citing Sources. I will caution you that it make take you some time to learn. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

SeaScuirtsFaDinna.4

Hey, I’m SeaScuirt’s mate. I’m just wondering why and what exactly he got banned for

Noice Gary (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Noice Gary Noice Gary (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Noice Gary, 4 is not registered but 3 got ~~banned~~ blocked for vandalism. You seem to be headed down the same path, unfortunately. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I haven’t made an edit on a page that isn’t mine in a while so what do mean by heading down the same path? Noice Gary (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Noice GaryNoice Gary (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about link for "Find articles on Wikipedia which cite this ISBN"

Hello Tea friends,

The Wikipedia:Book Sources page mentions a way to "Find articles on Wikipedia which cite this ISBN". I found that the link that is included within the page heading: Wikipedia:Book Sources#Find_on_Wikipedia, leads to a magicnumber search. I am unsure where to include the ISBN or how to make this function.

My apologies for a likely silly question, but does this search still work, and if so, could you please let me know what I'm doing incorrectly? Thanks so much! SunnyBoi (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi SunnyBoi. You are not supposed to use Wikipedia:Book sources directly. The lead says:

If you arrived at this page by clicking an ISBN link in a Wikipedia page, you will find the full range of relevant search links for that specific book by scrolling to the find links below. To search for a different book, type that book's individual ISBN into this ISBN search box.

MAGICNUMBER automatically becomes the ISBN number when you do this. But all it does is make a standard search for the number. If you already have the ISBN then you can just enter it in the search box on any page. Special:Booksources only finds occurrences written without hyphens so it often fails. Making your own search including hyphens may find more. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing a title

hello How can I change the title of a page? In fact complete a title with two words more. Thank you 82.254.19.66 (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing the title of a page requires moving the page to a different title. IP users cannot do that by themselves, but you may go to Requested Moves to make a request. You may also want to discuss it with other editors that might be following the relevant page first. 331dot (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing page names can be contentious, when the change is made everything goes with the move except the score of how many readers have accessed the article in the past. To name change in the middle of a DYK is the height of rudeness; especially if it's a trivial change. However disambiguating a name from a similar other is sometimes necessary, unless it can be done with a re-direct? I actually wonder if there should be an optional forum for agreeing the names of article before their creation? Broichmore (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

navigation template autocollapse question

On David Walker (abolitionist), there are two templates at the end. One is collapsed and the other not. They should both be collapsed? I can't figure out the problem. deisenbe (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Deisenbe, if you look at the source code, the expanded template has an additional parameter, "state": {{Boston African American community pre-Civil War|state=expanded}} while the other one does not. So, someone made it so deliberately, you could ask at the article's talk page, or change it to what you think is best, and wait and see if someone else reverts. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't find the code you refer to. Sesrching the template for the word "expanded" produces nothing. deisenbe (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: It is David Walker (abolitionist)#External links which says {{Boston African American community pre-Civil War|state=expanded}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)