Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 421

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 415

←

Archive 419

→

Moving an image to Commons

Hi, in the article Oliver! is an image, that I would like to use in another language Wikipedia (File:Oliver Theatre Royal Bill Board.JPG). For over a year this image is marked for transfer to Commons, but it still hasn't transferred and I don't know how to do this (all my tries went wrong). Is there any person who would be so kind, to do that, so that it can be used in other language Wikipedias? 84.188.73.33 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I am working on it now. I'll give a holler when done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

All done. I tweaked the name slightly to lowercase the JPG. It's at File:Oliver Theatre Royal Bill Board.jpg. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'm in a hurry at the moment, but tomorror I will use it in the German Wikipedia. Thank you! 84.188.77.150 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have integrated it into the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia now. Thank you very much again. 79.224.78.84 (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad to help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

adding a link to verify a person on a bio page

Help - I just created three new pages - all for writers and story editors for the NBC sitcom Undateable. But they've all been flagged to be deleted because I didn't cite a source. Can someone tell me how to edit the page and insert the link to the official NBC website that lists these people as writers on the show?CatBrewer (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, CatBrewer, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added one for Laura Moran, you can use it as an example. Please read Referencing for Beginners for more detail. DES ^(talk) 23:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC) @CatBrewer: DES ^(talk) 23:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ack - I feel so out of my element --- I just updated the site for Laura Moran and Terrell Lawrence but not sure I did it correctly. I don't understand how to look at your revisions :( Sorry CatBrewer (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@CatBrewer: click the History tab at the top of the page and then click the radio dial buttons on the 2 versions you wish to compare. Also, it is a much better idea, particularly for new editors, to create new articles in your sandbox work space and via the WP:Article Wizard as you will have much more time to make the content "ready for prime time" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me if I did it correctly for Terrell Lawrence? thanks! CatBrewer (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@CatBrewer: you added a link ~~that validates the existence of a person~~, but it does not address the concern that noted in the template that there is a credible claim of notability. See this link for the basic criteria required for a stand alone article.

And then you may wish to see WP:REFB for how to properly format the links. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I didnt look at the link, but apparently it doesn't mention Terrell, so no, apparently you did not do it correctly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I made a reflist and ref section on this article. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@CatBrewer:, you say that you created three pages, but looking at your history I can only find Laura Moran and Terrell Lawrence. I checked, and I can confirm TRPoD's comment - Terrell Lawrence is not mentioned on the link at www.nbc.com/undateable. There is a Bill Lawrence mentioned as one of the three Executive Producers, and I see that in an earlier version of the page you clarified that they are not related. But there is no mention of Terrell.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

from the notice on their talk page, i believe the third was Chris Luccy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see - I didn't know that deleted articles would also vanish from the editor's list of contributions. Now that I have learned something for today, I'm happy. Thanks.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft: John Zurier

I reviewed Draft: John Zurier, and declined it as a BLP lacking in-line citations. I then received a message on my talk page from User:Smokyhallow, saying that he or she had added footnotes and resubmitted the draft, but that User:Cult of Green had then similarly declined the draft. It appears to me that the current version does have in-line citations, so that maybe Cult of Green meant that they were not enough to establish notability. I am bringing this here to discuss with other experienced editors what can be done to improve the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon - to clarify my review please see WP:MINREF and you will see the minimum standard for inline citations. The draft article does have some inline citations however it doesn't meet the minimum standard. Best wishes Cult of Green (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. User:Smokyhallow - Please provide more inline references. I think that the subject is notable but it is up to you to establish that. A few editors go beyond the call of duty in building up an article to where it can be accepted. Maybe you can ask them for help, or maybe you can add the references to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Although the draft has a variety of problems, I think that it is clear that this artist is notable. He has had a solo show at a major museum and many solo shows at respected commercial galleries. He has been the subject of significant coverage in Art in America. And so on. It is better, in my opinion, to give the primary author help and suggestions for improving the article than to keep declining the draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Southwest University, U.S

I submitted a page with the above title but it was deleted by JMHamo. I need assistant on how I can resubmit the same page with some modification. NomsuNomsu (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Nomsu: - welcome to the Teahouse.

The three things I would recommend are:

Utilize the WP:Article Wizard to create the article. It will start out in draft space rather than live space and will generally not be under such scrutiny so that you can get help to make it appropriate.

The second is to head the advice of why the first version was deleted. We are writing an encyclopedia, not hosting free advertisements.

The third would would be to read the basic requirements for having a stand alone article and the Cliff's notes version and ensure that the subject of the article and your draft meet those requirements.

(and the semi optional fourth which may or may not be applicable): read and follow the conflict of interest policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nomsu, and welcome to the Teahouse. I recommend that you use Wikipedia:Article wizard in order to create any new articles. I see that the previous version was deleted for using overly promotional language, so you should probably read the relevant section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style to get an idea of what kind of wording to avoid in your next draft. You will also need to cite sources for any facts in the article which someone might question, and it's best to use secondary sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles which discuss the university, or coverage in a published book — the university's own website, as a primary source, should only be cited for facts which you can't find a secondary source for. This guide to formatting references should help.

Once you think you have everything you need in the draft, submit it using the button at the top of the page. An experienced editor will review the draft, and if necessary point out areas which need further improvement. The draft and review process prevents new articles from being deleted when you're still working on them. Just make sure you address any issues raised by the reviewer(s) before you re-submit it, if the draft is initially declined. And of course feel free to return to the Teahouse for any further help you may need. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 11:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing a Tag

Hi, I have just copyedited an article. It had the tag or banner saying it needed copyediting at the top of the page. Should i remove it (and if so how) or do I leave it in place? Janifrax12 (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

hello @Janifrax12: and thanks for copy editing!

you are correct that the banner needs to be removed manually. at the top of the page will be something in braces, called a WP:TEMPLATE. It probably looks like {{copyedit|date=May 2015}} just remove that.

You may also be interested in joining the WP:Guild of Copyeditors-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Janifrax12, welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for copy-editing articles! It looks to me like you did a good job with Ashley Reed, so I took the tag off for you. In future all you need to do is remove the {{copy edit|date=November 2015}} (or whatever date is included) tag from the top of the article. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 11:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Timing of BLP PROD

This is more a question of Wikipedia etiquette than strict rules, I think. Looking through new pages, I often find stubs that are BLPs with no references, such as Josh Schache. The rules say I must BLP PROD these. But a couple of editors have suggested (always in the nicest possible terms) that it would be better to give the authors some time to finish working on the article before doing this, as dealing with the PROD is a distraction that takes time and effort away from the job. But how long should I wait - a day? A week? A month? Or should the rules be carried out as written, and raise it straight away?Gronk Oz (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

if they haven't made an edit to the article in an hour, or even 30 minutes then its appropriate. You want to catch them while they are still here. Even better, if they are still editing go to their talk page and let them know whats going to happen if they dont take action. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

For a brand new article, it should not be marked "reviewed" until it is BLP PRODded or sourced. The PROD itself includes a 7-day waiting period. I agree with the TRPOD that sourcing BLPs should be a priority and can't reasonably be called a "distraction" unless it is done minutes or seconds after the article was created. VQuakr (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you both!

--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If the rules didn't say BLP PROD, there would be a lot more than the 3,300 currently sitting in this pile. CV9933 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Searching Google News yields plenty of recent sources for Josh Schache. Often, it is better to do a quick notability check and add a couple of sources than to PROD an article. Our first choice is to save articles, not to delete them, if the topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, it is not correct to say that "The rules say I must BLP PROD these". There are no rules that say you "must" do anything at all to the article or indeed to any article. It is true that you should not mark an article as reviewed or patrolled if it is an unsourced BLP. You may always elect to find and add sources if you choose. Personally I wouldn't add a BLPPROD tag to an article that is only a few hours old, or to one where the creator has been editing within the last hour or so. You have the option of sending a talk page message directly to the article creator on his or her talk page, or of adding an {{unsourced}} tag, or of trying to source it yourself, or of simply leaving the article for a bit in hope that someone will add sources. This is one reason to do NPP from the back of the backlog, or at least not the front. All that said, BLPPRTOD gives 7 days for a source to be added, it isn't exactly sudden death. But when a single simple google search leads to a valid source, it doesn't take much longer to find and cite that source than it does to add the BLPPROD tag, and there is a net gain. DES ^(talk) 18:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding: Rendering process died with non zero code: 1 (Possible reason)

I think I might have accidently discovered the problem.

I was creating a pdf on early civilizations and got the same error message as everyone else.

After trying a few dozen times, I decided to just download each page as a single pdf and merge them later.

Every page worked.

Except one: Babylon.

When I tried to download that page I received this message: "! Package polyglossia Error: The current roman font does not contain the Syriac".

I removed Babylon from my book...and it worked perfectly.

I doubt it's really as simple as a font problem...but maybe?

Ccmstf77 (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that Ccmstf77. It may be due to the Old Persian text in the infobox of Babylon. It doesn't display with the fonts on my computer. —teb728 t c 03:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

expanding a stub article

Hello everyone!

Question - I would like to expand/replace an article that has been marked as a stub. Should I create the article in my sandbox first (so that I could work on it before publishing it) and then copy/paste it in place of the stub article, or is there another way?

Thanks a lot!!

Kamengrossi (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Kamengrossi, welcome. I disagree with sandbox editing because then you have to marry your sandbox to the existing article assuming there are subsequent edits by other editors which there invariably are. There are also copyright attribution issues. Micro editing in the actual article is a better way to go. By editing in the article itself the copyright trail is clean. If you want to edit the article for a period of time and don't want edit conflicts, use the {{in use}} template. Click on the blue link here so you can read the variables so you can set a custom timer, your time in, and a message. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank so much for such a detailed reply! I'll do that!

Kamengrossi (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirecting an article

Do I need to go through the regular deletion process if I want to turn an article into a redirect? Since it is a redirect it's not technically a deletion and it isn't a merge either so I'm not sure how to proceed. Opencooper (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Opencooper, welcome. No need to delete. Are you sure about doing this? What is the page name? You should put the redirect in a category or more (up to seven) also.

A redirect looks like this:

#REDIRECT [[Name of page you are redirecting to]]

{{R from historical name}} (or an appropriate category)

Be sure to put the word redirect in ALL CAPS; put it on the 1st line; put the R category(s) on the 3rd line and so forth.

Good luck. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to go through the deletion process, see WP:BLAR. Datbubblegumdoe (mobile) (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: I appreciate the answer. Thank you for the tips about creating redirects as well. The article in question is Crisis in the Hot Zone, a New Yorker article that was later turned into a book, The Hot Zone. The issue with the former is that it is redundant with the latter article which contains much more information and is cited, so a merge isn't needed. Opencooper (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Because the article has 32 authors over a 10-year period, and because the article is about the magazine article and not about the book, I don't think a straight away deletion (redirect) is in order. IMHO, it should go through the standard Merge process. Once merged, then create the redirect. The Merge templates will give other editors a chance to chime in. The redirect category will be: R from merge. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable approach. Thank you for looking into it and providing your advice. Opencooper (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about implementing Third Opinion recommendation

Hi, I'm here to ask for help making edits recommended via Third Opinion. Another editor suggested I post here, since I have a financial COI and don't want to make the edits myself.

To summarize the situation, I've been working on behalf of The Wyss Foundation on the Hansjorg Wyss article for the past few months. Recently, another editor and I disagreed on the amount of information that should be included in one section. I posted to Third Opinion to get another editor involved. You can see the conversation here. The third opinion was that the section should be reduced, but the editor didn't want to make the changes and pointed me here instead. Would someone be able to help or tell me what I should do next? This is the first time I've used the Third Opinion process. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Heatherer. Although I see there is already one on the page, perhaps you could use a new {{request edit}} template, outlining the precise edit request that results from the discussion? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Differences

All the latest edits are showing:

[rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)] in green, blue and red. Eden's Apple (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eden's Apple. Those are Twinkle features documented at Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Revert and rollback. You see them when you have enabled Twinkle at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Permission from the copy right owner

I need to post a software image file from the software owner website on a wikipedia (the article is AVS Video Editor). I intend to ask the software owner the permission to post the screenshot on wikipedia. How should the licence agreement with the software owner I need to send to Wikimedia's copyright service look like? NeviRom (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, NeviRom. The e-mail agreeing to an acceptable license needs to come, not from you, but directly from the copyright owner. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for general instructions and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for suggested wording of such an e-mail. Deor (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the copyright holder needs to be aware that he or she is giving permission, not just "to post the screenshot on wikipedia", but for the image's free use (including modification) anywhere, so long as proper attribution is given. Permission for use only on Wikipedia is not acceptable. Deor (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NeviRom. It may not be necessary to obtain formal permission to use a screenshot in an article about software. Non-free images can be used in limited circumstances, and that may apply to your situation. Please read our policy on use of non-free images for the overall policy and Wikipedia:Software screenshots for the specifics related to your situation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I need a copy editing volunteer.

Hello, recently I saw a banner on my article that I need a copy editing done. This is my article: Threat and error management. I would like to politely ask a copy edit volunteer to edit my article on grammar, structure etc. Thank you very much in advance and I appreciate any help or assistance. Sincerely, Hseong2 (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hseong2 - There's a group called the Guild of Copy Editors. They have a place to make such requests: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

And on a pedantic note, it is not "your" article - it is an article which you created and have been so far the primary editor, but it is not "yours". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

May I use translated material in an article?

I am writing a new article about a Yiddish singer. The best source is a multi-page article in Yiddish, published in 1937, available online through the Internet Archive in collaboration with the Yiddish Book Center. May I translate directly, & then cite the source? Or cite the source first, & follow with the translation in quotes or italics? Thanks for answering my very first Teahouse question;it is a thrill to collaborate with my new invisible friends. Nadnie (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nadnie. You can cite a reliable source in any language, and should include a link to the online archive. If you are reasonably fluent in both English and Yiddish, you can include a few translated sentences. Adding a complete translation of the entire article here on Wikipedia would be considered a copyright violation, and should be avoided. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Nadnie, just to add a little to what Cullen328 has said above: if you translate short excerpts directly from the page as he suggests, then you must format those excerpts as quotations, and they should be represent only a small percentage of the total article text. In general, it's preferable from a copyright point of view to read the source and make use of its information, but to make sure that you express those facts and ideas entirely in your own way and in your own words. An unauthorised translation that closely follows the original (as a good translation usually does) is still a copyright violation, even though the likelihood of most of us recognising it as such may be fairly slim. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

How to start my 1st Edit-a-thon

I'm a Wikipedia newbie and a part-time employee of a literature & history educational nonprofit. I've been asked to help organize an edit-a-thon, and I'd like some advice on getting started. (1) Is it better to create a Wiki page for the event, or a Meetup? (2) If I create a Wiki page, is it a good idea to make a sub-page under the GLAM Wiki? (3) Since User IDs aren't supposed to be shared, will there be a problem if I create the edit-a-thon page with my own user ID? Does the organization I work for have to have an institutional user ID--or is such a thing even allowed to exist? Thank you! Grindall Reynolds (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Grindall Reynolds. I suggest that you start by reading How to run an edit-a-thon, which should answer most of your questions. Wikipedia accounts are for one individual person, so no, the institution should not have an account. Since you are editing in connection with your job duties, our Terms of use require you to disclose your employer.

I have attended lots of edit-a-thons. I recommend that new articles be written in draft or user sandbox pages, and only moved to main space when they are developed a bit, and have several references. Otherwise, the risk of speedy deletion is high, and that can be disheartening for new editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Before doing the Edit-a-thon I think checking out WP:AfD's are extreme important just to know what you'll be up against. Plus, this discussion on them, AfD culture. Good luck! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 22:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

When is "on" grammatically correct when it preceeds a month and year date?

Example: "On May 2015, the Philippines expressed interest in acquiring a number Lockheed P-3 Orion from Japan, which the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) is planning to retire within a few years time." I was told by another editor that "ON" is correct instead of the "IN" that I supplied. What is what here?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, Srednuas Lenoroc. "On" is correct for a specific date, as in "On 5 May 2015". "In" is correct for a month without a specific date, as in "In May 2015". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be in the course of my correcting this grammatical happenstance of those that claim without reserve that "on MONTH YEAR" is correct.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that "On May 2015" is without question grammatically incorrect. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point but I have never said that "on MONTH YEAR" was grammatically correct but that there have been some editors who believe so.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I know, Srednuas Lenoroc. I'm confirming that you are correct! Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected a heap more instances of the same error in the same article. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been going through a search "on MONTH YEAR" from 1500 to 1920 to review these instances to see if they are grammatically incorrect and have corrected those that I believe are. Then I have been working by month from November 2015 backward to review and correct when necessary so unless an article has "on MONTH" (say "on April") then I do not get to that review until that particular MONTH/YEAR come up. That way I can somewhat cover all the instances that pop up. So for those articles that I have already for any particular "date" reviewed there could be more present. This may seem a tedious way of doing it but then I do concentrate on an absolute identified through the search rather than a potential merely because through happenstance with another date it has appeared in the search hits. It seems that the presence of "on MONTH YEAR" appears where it was intended to supply a DAY but never was done. Whenever it has been found please feel free to edit.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, Srednuas Lenoroc, that's quite a copy-editing task you've taken on! Thank you for doing it. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 16:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not surprising that there are spelling and grammar mistakes on Wikipdedia, but I do find it surprising quite how many instances of that particular error there are! Good work, Srednuas. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it okay to edit stubbed articles not marked as such?

I recently found the page for San Juan Guelavia and noticed it's not marked as a stub article, despite not possessing even a Table of Contents. Might it be okay to add more possible information to the article?

(This is all kinda confusing...)

Ɀexcoiler's coding-fueled egⓞ is too huge! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} 07:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely! That is what we're here for, Zexcoiler Kingbolt - to improve the articles and build a better encyclopedia. So if you can improve an article - anything from fixing a spelling mistake to adding good references to writing the bulk of the content, then be bold and do it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Zexcoiler Kingbolt. We have over five million articles here on Wikipedia. As long as you edit in compliance with our policies and guidelines, you can edit the vast majority of them, including unmarked stubs. As a matter of fact, if your goal is to improve them, you are encouraged to edit them. A few high profile or controversial articles are protected because of persistent vandalism or disruptive editing. Even so, you can suggest changes on those article's talk pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Improving such an article so that it isn't a stub anymore is always going to be the preferred option for the project. However you will not necessarily have the time/resources available to make such improvements immediately. In such cases you can add a stub tag to an article. You can search for the category-specific tag at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types, or, if you're unsure as to the appropriate tag from that list, you can simply tag such an article as a generic {{Stub}} and it's likely that one of the lovely people from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting will change that to a more category-specific tag within a day or two. --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

In this particular case, the article is already tagged as a stub. If you look towards the bottom of the article, you will see "This article about a location in the Mexican state of Oaxaca is a stub..." That comes from the code at the bottom of the page: {{Oaxaca-geo-stub}}.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahh. Thanks, I didn't really notice that one. Mistake on my part. Ɀexcoiler's coding-fueled egⓞ is too huge! ^{Say hi!} ^{Look here!} 22:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Beyond that article, though, Zexcoiler Kingbolt, you should feel free to edit and expand any article that you see fit (subject to WP:BRD) - not just stubs. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Finding articles by the date they were first created

All articles have their full history displayed under the "View history"-button and the time of creation can be found from there. There is also Special:AllPages on which the list of all existing articles can be found and there is a variety of lists about pages with some specific property. Is there some way to find or list all currently existing articles created on some specific date, say 4. May 2012, or a list of all articles by the time they were first created? TheSpecial:AllPages lists them in alphabetical order. Voltteri (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Voltteri I this can be done with a database dump. See here. How you would translate the ability to do this into action is less straightforward. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Special:NewPages goes back 30 days. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

talk page

what is a talk page and what's its importance I didn't understood

BOTFIGHTER BOTFIGHTER (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It's a place to discuss improvements to Wikipedia pages, see Help:Using talk pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, each registered user also has their own User Talk page for discussions with other editors. Yours is at User talk:BOTFIGHTER; I just left a short message there for you.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks BOTFIGHTER for your question; and David Biddulph, Gronk Oz for the answers. While I do have limited internet access right now, I do plan to include these answers into a new tip for the Tip of the day, and at the Tips library at the Tips for contributors on getting started section. Cheers! JoeHebda (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Actress

I am not aware of this actress's biography. Can anyone check the revision history. The Ip is making positive contribution in a way that he is getting reverted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lilyan_Tashman&action=history The Avengers 17:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I've checked the IP's edits. The IP edits that are being reverted appear to be vandalism. I will be requesting semi-protection of the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Chos3n

I reviewed, and moved to draft space, Draft:Chos3n, and declined it, as not meeting musical notability guidelines. I also noted that there appeared to be a conflict of interest because the subject of the article and the author of the article were the same. The draft has subsequently been resubmitted twice and declined twice. I received a message on my talk page from User: We are Chos3n, saying: Hi can you help we need a page up http://www.mtv.co.uk/taxonomy/term/4657

I don't entirely understand. Is the editor saying that they need help getting the draft page approved, or are they asking about an unrelated web site? I think that the answer as to getting the draft page approved is that, unfortunately, the group may not be notable, and in any case the group is discouraged from trying to get "their own" article approved. Can anyone else advise either me or them?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that the same user has subsequently created Chos3n (band) as well. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

So they have gotten tired of using AFC and have gone directly to article space. I have proposed the article for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The same editor has also created Nu Gospel, with the justification that this is how the band Chos3n describes their music. I will AfD that too.--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

My personal page Fred Nwaozor, which I recently created, was deleted/declined by your editors. Please what actually prompted the deletion, and how can I maintain a reliable page on Wikipedia? Thanks. Fred Nwaozor (writer/activist)

My personal page Fred Nwaozor, which I recently created, was deleted/declined by your editors. Please what prompted the unexpected deletion,and how can I maintain a reliable page on Wikipedia? Thanks. Fred Nwaozor (writer/activist) Docfred84 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The messages on your user talk page contain numerous relevant wikilinks, and the deletion logs for Fred Doc Nwaozor and for Fred Nwaozor also have links. If you were trying to write an article about yourself, the reasons for not trying to do that are shown at WP:autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Please also note, Docfred84, that there is no such thing as a "personal page" on Wikipedia, other than your user page. Articles are not owned by anyone, and any editor is free to edit them. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

See the messages on your talk page, User talk:Docfred84. Read the autobiography policy, which states that the submission of autobiographies is strongly discouraged, and the conflict of interest policy. You ask, "how can I maintain a reliable page on Wikipedia?" You are not entitled to maintain an article about yourself on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and articles are based on notability of the article subject. The second and third deletions of the article should not have been unexpected, since you had already been told what the problem was. You may maintain a user page giving some information about yourself provided that you do not use it as a substitute for an article and do not use it for promotional purposes, but the deletion messages indicate that the deleting administrators thought that your article was promotional. As you have been cautioned, any further attempts to insert an article may risk your account being blocked and the title salted, that is, blacklisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

What is a valid source?

I had made changes to the list on best selling singles, and one of the sources I used was a forum. On the forum however was a copied article from mediatraffic, a very reliable source, but the original article has since been removed. Is the forum still a valid source? Josepheugene418 (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Josepheugene418, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can read some general advice on what is considered a reliable source at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Forums aren't regarded as such as they contain user-generated content and are generally not subject to editorial control. It may be that the material on the forum was copied from a reliable source, but can we be sure that it was copied accurately? Have you tried using an internet archive service such as https://archive.org/ to see if you can gain access to the original source? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Josephenugene418: Hey Joseph. It's common enough for websites to suddenly become inaccessible. I agree with Cordless Larry here; when I run unto this problem, I try to pull up the original content from the website using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, which archives old versions of various websites. Although it might seem unlikely, a forum post may be inaccurate because it is not subject to any kind of editorial control or oversight. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, Josepheugene418. I noticed that with this edit, you added another Wikipedia article as a source. You shouldn't do that, as Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source for material Wikipedia articles (you can imagine that chaos that would cause). If the material is sourced in the original article, then I suggest just using that source as a reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry Thank you for the cite. I am working on finding the exact address so that I can type it into the website you gave me.

Also thanks for the warning, i'm changing it right now. Josepheugene418 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Aksolotl/sandbox

Can another experienced editor please look at this and advise? It appears that it was last edited in February 2015, except that today it was submitted to Articles for Creation. My question has to do partly with the note: "Please don't delete any of this. I'm writnig a Wikipedia article as an academic assignment and this User Space contains my draft work." Should I delete that note and move the sandbox into draft space as a draft article and review the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Another editor declined it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

February to November is a long timeframe for an academic assignment. The "please don't delete" note was there in February. My guess would be that the editor returned to Wikipedia, saw their old assignment and thought they might as well submit it to AfC. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. If it had been in draft space rather than in a sandbox, it would have been speedied as an abandoned draft. There is no such rule about sandboxes, or about user space in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

References many different pages of the same website

I've been searching and I can't find an answer to what I think is a decently simple citation question. I saw that the article List of Soviet manned space missions has absolutely no references at all on the information in its tables, and that the pages it Wikilinked to didn't have much the information in those tables cited either. I found a website which contained information about most of the subjects of this list, but spread across many pages. Is it right to create an individual citation for each page, as I've done with the first six? Also, should each table's cell contain the in-text citation (Which I've seen in some tables) or just the 'Notes' cells (Which I've seen in other tables). Thank you. UnitTwo (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello UnitTwo, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you do need to cite each page individually, in order to ensure that the material can be easily verified. As for the placement of the citations, I'm not sure that there is a policy or consensus on how this should be done in tables. Others might correct me, but the way you've done it looks fine to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

How do I communicate with my teahouse host?

My teahouse host welcomed me. How do I send a message back to him? Priceobserver (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Priceobserver and welcome to the Teahouse! You can send I_JethroBT a message by writing on his talk page: User_talk:I_JethroBT just like he did on yours. He's a great editor and I'm sure he'll be happy to talk to you about getting involved with Wikipedia. Here at the Teahouse itself all of us hosts share the helping duties, so if you post a question here it may be me, I_JethroBT, or any of the dozens of hosts who answers. Cheers, --LukeSurl^{t c} 22:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

When I'm on his talk page, do I click on "new section?" Priceobserver (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Need to create an article for a new app my company is developing.

How do I go about doing this? Do I need additional permission of some sort? I'm not sure what the point of my personal page is and what I'm supposed to do with it. Can someone help me? I find the navigation and advice very long and confusing!Elfietan5 (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Elfietan5. You can create that but not on Wikipedia. Article topics need to be written about first, substantively, in reliable, secondary sources completely unconnected with the company in order for a Wikipedia article to be warranted, which would require both a demonstration of notability and that the information content was verifiable. Wikipedia is never properly the place to announce some new thing, not already written about elsewhere by the world, because of the type of reference an encyclopedia is. Very, very occasionally, some massive company's app in development might have received such attention from the world in order to sustain an article, but that would be very rare. You doing so, your "need" and desire to get word out about this app is also an entirely inappropriate use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion – something many people attempt to do in good faith and don't realize is a problem but nevertheless is the case. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First of all, welcome to Wikipedia, Elfietan5; you are in the right place to ask questions about how to get started here – and yes, we know that unfortunately it can be confusing for newcomers. I hope you will soon find your way around and like it enough to want to stay.

Unfortunately your initial aim in coming here is a project very unlikely to succeed. Wikipedia is not for promotion of any kind, and any attempt to promote your app here is likely to be met with strong resistance. I'm sorry, but this just is not the place for you to do this. I won't give you a long list of long pages to read, with all the numerous reasons why this isn't going to work, as I think you've found enough to read already. However, please do be aware that you should not make any edit here that promotes TEFL Express or its products in any way. We have more than five million articles, and many of them need attention or expansion; perhaps you could make a start on one of those? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Elfietan5. In answer to your third question: your user page, if you choose to create it, is for anything you wish to share about you as a Wikipedia editor. A small amount of biographical information unrelated to Wikipedia is usually allowed, but not anything promotional, or anything that looks as if it is trying to be an article. Also, if you do decide to work on any articles about your company or its products (which you are discouraged from, but not forbidden), you should declare your conflict of interest on your user page. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Written Article

Hello. I am very green at this. I hope I explain it properly. I added a narrative to the article "Seventh Avenue,Newark." I thought I saved it but it disappeared. When I go back to the article it is not there. Is It lost or being reviewed? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Earl Scott (talk • contribs) 16:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michael Earl Scott
According to the history of Seventh Avenue, Newark it has not been edited since 14:17, 25 August 2015 - so it appears that you did not save your edit - many new editors click the "Show preview" button instead of the "Save page" button - so they see their edit and can check it is correct, but it has not been saved - Arjayay (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, your contribution history at Special:Contributions/Michael Earl Scott only includes one edit, which is the question you have posted here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying a confusing article

I think I need the help of somebody with a background in Indian culture. The article Kakade Group Of Institutes has me scratching my head, and the editor who wrote it is not responding. The article does not mention the Kakade Group Of Institutes at all, and instead it appears to be a biography - although it is not clear whose (not clear to me, anyway). Many of the words in the article are not meaningful to me, and it is not in good English - so much so that I can't even tell what is people's names and what isn't. Would anybody care to help?Gronk Oz (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The obvious solution is proposed deletion. ~~But would it be a proposed deletion of a biography of a living person? It's hard to tell.~~ The article's last sentence states that the person is dead. Maproom (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Done - Theroadislong has already tagged it for CSD.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This was a blatant copyright violation and so I have deleted on that overriding basis.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

RFC Bot Won't Quit

I signed up for the RFC bot because I thought it would be fun but quickly realized it wasn't for me. However it still keeps sending me messages every other day despite me removing my name from the list. How can I make it stop? Aparslet (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aparslet. I've added "{{bots|deny=Legobot}}" to your user talk page. This should take care of the issue. Maybe it's some type of cache issue for the bot (just a guess). It might be good to drop a note at User talk:Legobot mentioning the problem so the human overlord is made aware. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Aparslet (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Formatting around tables

Tables remain my bane on Wikipedia. I've found a couple of articles which contain tables that are breaking the formatting of the page, but can't figure out how to fix them myself.

First there's Pear, where the table in the Production section is protruding into the following section (Storage) which has flowed around it to the right rather than appearing below the Production section. I know I could "kludge" the situation by adding a bunch of line breaks, but that wouldn't be the optimal approach for readers using different browser configurations, screen resolutions etc. Is there some more elegant code that could be used to force the Storage section to stay below the Production section?

Next up is Edible mushroom where, curiously, the problem table (listing the chemical composition of different forms of Vitamin D) is superimposed over the references, and appears to the left of the image captioned "The photochemistry of Vitamin D biosynthesis" rather than below it. I don't even know where to begin with this one; I took a look at the wikimarkup and couldn't see anything that looked likely to be the culprit.

Thanks in advance to providers of table wizardry. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi GrammarFascist. I have used {{clear}} in Pear [1] and floatright from Help:Table#Floating table in Edible mushroom.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter! (And thanks for linking to the diffs so I could learn from what you did.) {{clear}} has done just the trick in Pear.

In Edible mushroom, the table in question is now positioned correctly at the right margin thanks to your edit. However, at least for me and my standard browser configuration, the text of the references was still going behind the table, although the table was no longer transparent. After some experimenting, I discovered the culprit (though I'm still not sure why it was causing the problem): something about using the 30em parameter in {{Reflist}} was apparently what was making the table superimpose over the references. Since the references were not displaying in two columns in any case (presumably because the tables and image from sections higher up were impinging on the References section), the only visible result is that the display problem has been fixed.

If anyone knows why the superimposition happened, that would be good to know for future reference. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 10:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: I made a slight tweak in Edible mushroom by inclosing all of the troublesome boxes and pics in a float code, since the refs were becoming entangled with the boxes and pics in a "finger joint" way on my browser. Hope it works on your's too. Code:

<div style="float:right;"> 
(whatever you need to keep to one side)
</div>

Using that, it does not matter if you use the normal {{Reflist}} or {{Reflist|30em}} (In fact on my browser it does look ever neater with the 30em, but I have not included that again, try it and see what you think.) And to answer your question about the why of it all: If you don't define which space belongs to which text the different templates will compete for the space available with messy consequences. w.carter-Talk 11:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have superimposed references in Firefox in any of the versions. I haven't examined other browsers. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have them on Explorer either, but the interlocking "finger joining" between refs and boxes + pics was messy enough for me. w.carter-Talk 12:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks so much, Cart! Your fix is nice and elegant, as code should be. I think that the references look fine either with or without 30em after your edit, so if you feel strongly about it by all means put it back in; I'll take the HTML comment about it out (or you're welcome to). Since neither of you were seeing the superimposition I was, I took a couple of screenshots so you can see what I was talking about: File:Screenshot of superimposed table in past revisions of the Edible mushroom article.png I was only seeing the superimposition in Firefox 32.0.3, not in 40.0.3 (on my spouse's computer) or Internet Explorer 11.0.10, but I think if I was seeing it, probably at least some other users were as well, so it's better that we fixed the issue. Thanks again to you both, Cart and PrimeHunter! —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 14:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

— Re screenshot: Gaahhh! O_o w.carter-Talk 14:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

People, whatever you've done there is not a success. What's that stripe of white down the centre-right of the lower part of the page for, with the "Vitamin D" section, the See-also and all the refs bunched into a narrow column on the left? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: I've added "width" to the float code to eliminate most of the white column. Is that better? w.carter-Talk 21:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit War

I need help from someone with interest in animation. There is an edit war between me and 82.38.157.176 at List of highest-grossing animated films and List of highest-grossing openings for animated films. The problem is The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water. I say it's a traditional animated movie with some live-action scenes and he/she says it's an animated/live-action hybrid movie. I tried to discuss the problem with him/her in topic Spongebob movies at talkpage of List of highest-grossing animated films but he/she just gave me useless links. I just want a healthy discussion, please help me. Paleo cemoski 17:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talk page, Talk:The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water. Read the dispute resolution policy, which says to start with discussion on the article talk page. The dispute resolution policy then offers several forms to use if discussion does not resolve the issue. In this particular case, if discussion does not work and edit-warring continues, request semi-protection of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

How can I request semi-protection for the article? Paleo cemoski 17:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You can request page protection at WP:RPP. Datbubblegumdoe^talk _contribs 17:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't request semi-protection pro-actively. Try discussion on the article talk page first. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I already posted a new section on the talkpage. Paleo cemoski 18:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Paleocemoski, I think the most important question you need to ask yourself is "does it really matter?" Some things are truly important and worth debating in detail until consensus is reached; others are … well ... not really important, so that your time and energies could possibly be better spent on something else. The various avenues for seeking consensus when there's disagreement are all there for a good reason, but every one of them involves the expenditure of time and effort by other volunteer editors, who might also have more interesting things they'd like to do. So it's not just wise but also a courtesy to other editors to choose your battles carefully, and simply walk away from the ones that aren't worth fighting. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Paleocemoski, you have been given some excellent advice above and I would like to add to it. You admit above that you have been engaged in an edit war. Please be aware that edit warring is a blockable offense. There is no excuse for an edit war, and you should never, ever edit war. Multiple reversions are acceptable only when dealing with libel, overt copyright violations and the like. Trivial disagreements about listing or categorizing animated films are no justication for breaking the rule against edit warring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right Cullen328, I am going to solve this without an endless edit war and thanks for reminding me the result of an edit war, you saved me from making a big mistake. Paleo cemoski 19:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of overloading you with well-meaning advice, you should also bear in mind that it's not about editors' personal opinions on the matter. It's about what the sources say. If the sources differ, then the article could say so. It's not Wikipedia's place to choose a winner in that argument, nor to do the original research to decide the matter.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)