Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 805

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 800

←

Archive 803

→

Place of birth - country?

I'm aware of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_of_birth

but according to that, Albert Einstein is born not in "German Empire" (as he was) but in (current) "Federal Republic of Germany". I think there should be a general rule for all languages. living and dead personalities. Is there already a ruling on that? I'd prefer always to use the the name of the country at the time of the birth, otherwise it would be a changing variable and it would never work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.8.20 (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Some guidance at WP:BIRTHPLACE, but I know that there are cases, like Nikola Tesla, that has been heavily debated and earned a place at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say that according to Place of birth, Albert Einstein is not born in the German Empire but in the Federal Republic of Germany. Place of birth does not mention Einstein at all. His article both in the prose and the infobox clearly state that he was born in the German Empire. The Federal Republic of Germany nor Germany are linked from his article. You will need to better explain your concerns. ~ GB fan 12:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The only guideline regarding "country of birth" I found was the one saying: "As a general rule with respect to passports, the place of birth is determined to be country that currently has sovereignty over the actual place of birth regardless of when the birth actually occurred". If we would enforce that guideline for Einstein, then we would have "FD Germany" for Einstein, and that would be ridiculous. What I'm saying is there should be a guideline for all languages saying that next to the place of birth, either no country or the country at birth. Right now there is chaos, some are using one logic. Issue with Tesla was his nationality, not POB. POB is correct and precise (both, country then and present country are entered). English language is mostly correct, but on other languages you always have different people try to push their agenda, only because there is no top guideline for that. I think having the original country gives a lot of context for the biography and hate to see it missing/wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.8.20 (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If Albert Einstein were to be alive today and he was applying for a passport he would need to put Federal Republic of Germany. That has absolutely nothing to do with what an article says about him. If other language Wikipedia's put the current country name rather than the name when the birth happened then that is a concern for that language. The English Wikipedia has no control over the operation of the other languages. ~ GB fan 12:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh OK, I wasn't aware of that. I though there was some standard guidelines that would ensure the same quality across all languages. At least a guideline we could all upon so we would avoid unnecessary discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.8.20 (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not that you're wrong, but the different language WP:s are pretty autonomous. Actually, on en-WP per MOS:ENGVAR and similar, the guidance is often: be consistant within a specific article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Subcategories not appearing.

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. So I made some editing and I think I have a problem. I created a new category (ex: category:1) and then made it a subcategory for another category (ex: category:2). Everything was normal during and after the process but when I had logged out I no longer see the editing I had just made. In the "category:2" page does not have the "category:1" I created and added even though everything is normal when I logged back in. Does anyone know what might be the problem? Gyokei (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you please give us a diff to the edits in question? Your contribution record shows no edits from this account prior to your question here. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

My most sincere apology. I created those in the Japanese Wikipedia. I was able to do that thanks to basic Kanji understanding (as those titles were purely in Kanji). My Japanese, however, is less than basic (and I can only grasp the texts partially thanks to the Kanji), making it unrealistic to ask this question there. As I am more fluent in English I decided to ask it here as I came across a similar question on Mediawiki, which unfortunately did not have a respond. Gyokei (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gyokei: You have created four Japanese categories [1] and added all of them to other categories. The page histories show that some of the added categories have later been changed by another editor but it's hard to follow without knowing Japanese. Please be more specific with links to category:1 and category:2. Maybe you just have to bypass your cache when you are logged in or out. You can also examine the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Gyokei (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Maintenance template removal

Hi there! I was wondering if I was allowed to remove a maintenance template on an article I created, as I have fixed the problem. Thanks! Wikkyexpert (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wikkyexpert and welcome to the Teahouse.

Yes, if you've resolved the problem, you are welcome to remove the template. Just don't get into an argument or edit war if another editor thinks the problem has not been satisfied. Discuss the issue on the talk page of the article to try to find out what is needed and to try to come to an agreement. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much jmcgnh!

Table creation

How an information table is created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anand Raj Baghel (talk • contribs) 08:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Anand Raj Baghel, and welcome to our Teahouse. I'm afraid as a new user you may find tables a little difficult to come to grips with at first. However please read Help:Tables and the introductory links at the top of that page for an introduction to how they work. I would advise you to do any testing in your sandbox, rather than in a live article, as it's very, very easy to make a mess of things. Previewing and regularly saving your table edits is really useful. Another good tip is to find an existing article with a simple table that you do like and view the source of that page to see how the table is constructed. It is always best to start off by making small edits to existing tables first. Hoping this helps, and good luck on your Wikipedia journey. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Anand Raj Baghel. While Nick's answer is correct, I have a suspicion that he may have misunderstood your question, and you may actually be asking about the table of basic information that appears at the top of many articles. That is called an Infobox, and you can find information about using them at Help:Infobox. --ColinFine (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

(Anand Raj Baghel (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC))

help

In 2012 i made an account called "Suzyparker" when I lived in mexico. i moved to ohio shortly afterwards and five years later i want to edit again but do not remember the password to my old account. When I search for "Suzyparker" nothing comes up either. Is this because I was editing on the Spanish Wikipedia? S̶U̶Z̶A̶N̶N̶E̶ ̶L̶E̶E̶ ̶P̶A̶R̶K̶E̶R̶ ̶|̶-̶/̶ (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

No such account on the Spanish Wikipedia either. David Biddulph (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

How to create a new entry using a Sandbox entry?

I've been preparing an entry for Wikipedia in my sandbox. I believe it is now ready, although of course the name of it still needs to be corrected. How can I make it an official Wikipedia entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Publius1909 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Publius1909: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would regretfully tell you that your draft is not yet ready to be formally placed in the encyclopedia. If you were to submit your draft for review, it would be declined. It contains only one source- and that source is a user-editable wiki(much like this one). Wikipedia requires that article subjects be shown to be notable with independent reliable sources that have in depth coverage of the subject. In this case this person would need to meet the guidelines at WP:BIO. A user-editable site would not be considered reliable. (Wikipedia isn't, either) If this person is not written about with in depth coverage in independent reliable sources, they would not merit an article here at this time. Please review Your First Article to learn more about the process and what is being looked for. You may also find it helpful to use this tutorial.

I will add the appropriate template to allow you to submit it for a review by another editor before it is placed in the encyclopedia, but you will need to locate appropriate sources first. Again, if you submitted it now, it would be quickly declined. I don't know if the person merits an article here or not, but I do know that the current draft is not ready. I'm sorry that this might not be what you want to hear, but you can keep working on it. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

upload wizard

I am a autoconfirmed user now but the upload wizard still doesn't respond , is that because of android ? Crispgatoglitz (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

You did not become autoconfirmed until 18:00 UTC, which was the time of your message above. Anything you tried before then would be before you were autoconfirmed. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that was an odd timing if it wasn't deliberate. Exactly the four required days between account creation [2] and the above post [3]. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Biography, familiy lines

Hey I'm newish and doing a bio on someone. Is it ok to use info from a family tree on Ancestry.com or is this to iffy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoSample (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, GeoSample, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately the answer is probably No, because the information on ancestry.com comes from all sorts of sources, many of them unreliable. See the discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 150#Ancestry.com (the most recent of several discussions). --ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I was a little worried about that. Thanks for the info.--GeoSample (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

autoconfirmed

four days passed and more than 100 edits taken but not able to open upload wizard , am I not autoconfirmed yet , what may be the possible reasons! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispgatoglitz (talk • contribs) 12:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Your account was created 1800 (UTC) on 20 July. It is now 1302 (UTC) 24 July. You will become autoconfirmed in a little under 5 hours. ~ GB fan 13:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) As https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Crispgatoglitz shows, you are not autoconfirmed yet. The 'autoconfirmed' rights should appear in parentheses like this:

Crispgatoglitz (talk | contribs) (autoconfirmed) (Created on 20 July 2018 at 20:00)

or as (confirmed user). --CiaPan (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure, @CiaPan:? I didn't think that the autoconfirmed right was shown there (or at least not to non-admins). Has it changed recently? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulph and Crispgatoglitz: Nope. And now I found I was wrong – autoconfirmed status does not appear there. However, this tool confirms the autoconfirmed status:

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Crispgatoglitz

--CiaPan (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Another way to look at userrights without leaving Wikipedia is Special:UserRights/Crispgatoglitz. Autoconfirmed shows up as "Implicit member of: Autoconfirmed users" under the username in the "View user groups" section. ~ GB fan 14:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed doesn't show at all in that log. I looked at different user accounts from both my admin and confirmed account. Editors that are autoconfirmed only and not autoconfirmed show up exactly the same, no rights shown. ~ GB fan 14:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

All of your edits to date are for one article Manjari Fadnis. Do you have any connection whatsoever (family, friend, employed) to this actress? If so, represents a conflict of interest that needs to be stated on your User page, and perhaps the Talk page of the article (if PAID, must be stated). The article as it now exists is extremely promotional, with many statement about the subject that are not referenced. Frankly the article as it now exists should be nominated for deletion or else radically rewritten. Finally, what references there are, are not all appropriate, and not in a good format. David notMD (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

On my Talk page, Crispgatoglitz declared not COI or PAID for this article. David notMD (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Help needed

Earlier today (July 24, 2018) I posted an addition on the following wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar_wiring#Manufacturers

Here is what I added to the end of the list in this section:

AweSome Musical Instruments (pickup switch upgrades for electric guitar)

However, the addition was removed.

Can you tell me what I am doing wrong?

Thanking you in advance for your kind reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2018awesome (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@2018awesome: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit was reverted because it was a spam link, which are not permitted. See WP:SPAM and WP:NOTLINKFARM; Wikipedia articles are not meant to list any and all websites or links about the subject. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Be aware that the other guitar component companies listed at Guitar wiring are notable enough that there are existing Wikipedia articles about them (hence blue and Wikilinked). Not true for Awesome. Hence reverted. Secondary problem is that your User name suggests you are affiliated with Awesome. David notMD (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Page with conflict of interest

I call to your attention to the page of Nieca Goldberg who is a practicing physician. Dr. Goldberg's page was written by an editor called JOHNSONIENIENSIS. This editor claims no scientific or medical expertise. The editor does not list biography as one of his/her specialties although this article falls under the biographical heading. I believe the entire page is just a form of medical practice advertisement. This physician has NO outstanding achievements that would separate her from many other academic cardiologists. I speck as as a retired Board Certified Cardiologist, Fellow of the American College of Cardiology who held an academic position for nearly 30 years, and and someone who has published multiple papers in peer reviewed journals. I believe that this page should be removed. We both know writing this on the page's talk page will yield a very slow resolution to the problem. If you look at the page you will see that "Multiple Problems" etc. are noted which there has been no attempt to correct. Who do you suggest that I contact in the labyrinthine network of Wikipedia to expeditiously deal with this problem? Thank you for your effort on my and Wikipedia's behalf. Nicodemus (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Separate from the merit of the article, it was created by User:Ildar2013 who on own talk page denies conflict of interest, or even knowing Nieca Goldberg. At the article's Talk page, you have not made an attempt to question the article. There are several paths to deletion (Speedy, Prod. AfC). If you are so professionally outraged by the article, all of those paths are open for you to start. David notMD (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Editors do not need to have scientific or medical expertise in order to write an article. Wikipedia only summarizes what appears in independent reliable sources. Quickly looking at the article, in my opinion it seems valid and I would oppose deletion if it were brought up. 331dot (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Oldsilenus. I share your concern about the quality of this article but some of the things you say are incorrect or unproven. For example, there is no Wikipedia editor called "JOHNSONIENIENSIS" and there have been no edits to that article by anyone with a name anything like that. The article was originally written by Ildar2013, and the article was discussed at User talk:Ildar2013, where that editor specifically denied a conflict of interest. What is your evidence of COI? You also have a misconception about editor expertise. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as long as they follow our policies and guidelines. Literally anyone can edit and we do not check credentials, or even ask for them. All we expect is that editors accurately summarize what reliable sources say.

The first step is to discuss your concerns - accurately - on the article's talk page. You say this will be too slow, but what's the rush? This is your first step. You can also edit the article yourself to remove promotional language and make the article more neutral. If you truly believe that this person is not notable, then complete an Articles for Deletion nomination.

My final suggestion is to avoid going around telling people that you are a retired cardiologist. First of all, that means nothing to other experienced editors, and secondly, we have no way to verify that your claim is true. All we really care about here is the accuracy of your editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Minor point, but there is an editor User:Johnsoniensis Vexations (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Response

Sorry if I misread the original author. While anyone can edit, they better know what they are writing about. My statements about myself may be checked via online databases such as those run by NY State. I believe that you are correct. Rather than assume, it would be better to handle this as a not notable person. That I am sure about.Nicodemus (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Your qualifications are not germane. Scores of editors have MDs, PhDs, etc. after there names. What counts is the quality of the references, not the person finding the references (or opining about the article). David notMD (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Nicodemus, the correct venue for conflict-of-interest concerns is WP:COIN. I suggest you bring your concerns there. Also, if I may, I suggest that you change your username to match your desired name, as your signature is very confusing. To change your username, go here: WP:RENAME. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Constance Savery

I have been the principal editor of the Class-C page Constance Savery. I have successfully uploaded a sketch of her to Wikipedia Commons, but wasn't competent enough to have that sketch added to the Constance Savery page. How do I do that? Anobium625 (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Anobium625. I took a look at your sketch, and in all honesty, it is not very good. I recommend that you add a photograph to the article instead. Because Savery has died, we can use a non-free image of a photo of her. Please read our policy on the use of non-free inages with special attention to item #10. The photo should be uploaded here on Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Nationality: American vs. United States

In the most recent revision of Al Hirschfeld, an IP user has changed the "nationality" field of {{tl:Infobox artist}} from "United States" to "American". That's the only change in this diff, and I'm pretty sure it's in good faith, but is there a standard or preferred usage? I've looked at America (which redirects to United States), Americans, American (word), and Names for United States citizens and their talk pages, which mostly consist of a lot of argument over what is "right" and why. But I haven't been able to locate any standard or preferred usage on Wikipedia. Is there one? My own preference is for "nationality" to be described as "American". Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This was discussed here just a few days ago, Thnidu: see ~~#I'm American too above~~ this question. But I don't think it reached a clear conclusion. --ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thnidu, ColinFine, although I technically may be referred to as an American citizen and a United States citizen, I refer to myself as an American; I also hear other United States citizens refer to themselves as American. Based on this it would be safe to say that in the English WP, we should be able to refer to United States citizens as Americans and have it understood to mean just that. While those from other North American and South American countries would be referred to as North Americans or South Americans. There is broad usage of the term American in the United States which is automatically understood by those referred to as such, so it could be safe to say that American would be the preferred or at least completely acceptable. Coryphantha Talk 21:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thnidu, There is some material on the use of the term American in the article American ancestry. Gab4gab (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@ColinFine, Coryphantha, and Gab4gab: Thank you all for your advice and suggestions. It seems clear that the IP editor's change was for the better, and I will leave it alone. --Thnidu (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The new googler looking for mentors

Nick and I have also contributed to the pages of Prof. Duncan Moore.

I am not that self obsessed. I am a kid for for sure.

But the only problem with the kid Named Aman TUGNAWAT is he knows a lot and he doesn't understand how to use that knowledge so it benefits everyone. And not just himself.

P.S. Thanks a lot for you reply Nick.

MangoX0XA (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a forum for requesting help. I'm not able to determine what you need from the subject and text you just posted. To save everyone else a hunt, Duncan Moore is Duncan T. Moore, and Amnan is User:Aman S. Tugnawat. You'll be as puzzled as I was on that user page. Probably a violation of the terms of use - this isn't Github. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I think there are some childish pranks going on here, and probably one user creating multiple accounts, one of which (User:Aman S. Tugnawat) might be designed to impersonate or embarrass a real person, so this is worth an admin looking into and considering blocking. Either worth CSD U5-ing or reporting to WP:UAA, I think. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrator note I agree with Nick Moyes above, and I've blocked MangoX0XA indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

|}

How come two of my wikipedia postings were deleted ? First time user ..please help

Dear admin,

I recently created 2 articles on wikipedia. I do this is because I am contesting for an entrepreneur award and one of the questions / fill I am suppose to enter is a link of MY PERSONAL wikipedia page and also MY COMPANY's wikipedia page.

I have never done this before until just 2 days ago and I copied my ABOUT US in the website to wikipedia and posted. And now both my pages are deleted and I am running out of time as the dateline for my submission is 31 July.

I seriously have no intention to promote my business , or maybe the manner which I wrote it seems like it, but I really do not know how to go about it. Cause it might be a very grey area in terms of "it looks like a promotion" and it "does not " look like a promotion.

Please help as I am running out of time.

Thank you very much.

Regards

Johan Ooi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johankkooi (talk • contribs) 06:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Johankkooi:, welcome to Wikipedia, and to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, it seems like you (and the people behind the contest) have misunderstood the function of Wikipedia. Nobody has a "personal Wikipedia page" - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform like Linkedin where people or companies can tell the world about themselves. In fact, Wikipedia is in general not concerned with what anyone says about themselves, and only focuses on what other people have published in reliable secondary sources. All Wikipedia articles have to be about notable topics, according to Wikipedia's own definition of notability. Have a look at this information - that's the requirements for creating an article about a person. Unless you meet those criteria, there shouldn't be an article about you, I'm afraid. Here are the criteria for articles about companies, and the same thing applies there. If you and/or your company are in fact notable, somebody unconnected to you will probably create an article at some point, but you should not do so yourself (nor hire anybody to do it for you, since conflict of interest editing, while not outright forbidden, is strongly discouraged - and anybody who edits for pay must make a clear declaration of that fact). Finally, you cannot copy and paste text from any external source straight into a Wikipedia article, because it is a copyright violation, something that is taken quite seriously here. Sorry to be discouraging, but your misunderstanding is unfortunately a common one. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 06:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi From Mango #0X0A #googledevs #mangodevs

WP:DENY John from Idegon (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am new editor an I am Interested if https://google.com/search?=Aman+Tugnawat+Sundar+Pichai in every way possible. how can i be an good lad on en.Wikipedia.org

I am the own and founder of mangodevelopers.com || Mango LLC.

Aman Tugnawat is a really big fan of Google.nwr as of now.

But he is a kid and a good kid per say.

He needs mentoring from Google search X ATAP in short [Legacy]

--MangoX0XA (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, MangoX0XA. Welcome to the Teahouse, which exists to answer questions from users with problems that they may have in editing or working with Wikipedia. Unfortunately, what you wrote above makes no sense to me whatsoever, nor does it seem relevant to the purpose of the Teahouse. If you do have a question, could I ask you to rephrase it so we can assist you? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I should add that, as you appear to be Aman Tugnawat, you are strongly advised not to attempt to write about yourself as you did at Draft:Aman Tugnawat. You may wish to learn a little more about how Wikipedia works by first reading, Wikipedia:Introduction understanding that everything said in articles must be supported by relliable sources that are independent of the subject being written about. Please use LinkedIn or other social media to promote yourself. You may then wish to read Wikipedia:Autobiography to appreciate how we take a sceptical view of those who do try to write about themselves here. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Formatting question

If you look at User:Deisenbe/sandbox it comes up filling the left of the page only. It didn’t use to and I cannot figure out why it does. Platform is Safari on iOS. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Helloe Deisenbe, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm unable to see anything wrong with it. Your sandbox does have a long contents section which only ever displays left-justified on the left side of the page, but everything looks fine below that, and text wraps across the entire page perfectly. I've checked it in Chrome on a Windows desktop, and in both classic and mobile view in Safari on iOS10. Sampling your sandbox page from a few months ago looks just the same to me. I'm unable to suggest what setting on your own device you might have altered that causes it to display incorrectly. Have you tried viewing it on any other devices? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It does the same on my iPhone. I haven’t turned on my Windows laptop in months so will have to live with it unless the reason pops up some day. There have now and then other Safari rendering problems. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't find anything online about it, Deisenbe. What happens when you visit other user or sandbox pages? Try mine at User:Nick Moyes/sandbox -it's almost as long as yours. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Yours comes up fine. No other page does it. deisenbe (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, Deisenbe that is weird. I've looked for weird templates that you might have used on your page, but apart from {{this}} and {{Muscogee}} I can't see anything unusual. But, you still have two other options. a) Post a description to WP:VPT (and maybe upload a screenshot to Commons too) for the boffins to ponder over, or b) simply accept that your IT kit hates you. LOL. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Solved it! Your issue has been bugging me, so I revisited your sandbox page today and spotted something I'd not noticed yesterday, either on my laptop or iphone, and which you didn't mention - namely, a huge but inconspicuous horizontal scroll bar! So, whilst your sandbox displayed fine on both devices, it was actually possible to scroll rightwards into lots of blank space, but then downwards to find the cause of the problem. It was simply a very long url which you'd pasted in back in mid-April without the http: in front of it. (see diff) So the text didn't resolve as a url, instead appearing as a very long line of continuous text which for some reason didn't wrap round the page, but increased the displayed page width considerably, thus causing your problem. I've now taken the liberty of editing your sandbox and have added the http, now making the page display normally again. (All major credit cards accepted!) Nick Moyes (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to diagnose and correct this. deisenbe (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Creating a new article

Am trying to create a new article for a personality who has contributed greatly to his community. Can I do this through my account or does he have to personally have an account with wikipedia before an article can be created and how do i start article creation processBenxg (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Benxg: We do not like it when people try to write articles about themselves, so that person does not need an account. See WP:COI and WP:NOTFACEBOOK for more info on that point. (WP:COI also means that people who personally know someone should not write an article about that person, either).

If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: Article creation date

Useful information about the articles or pages, is the creation date, although they have the last edit date. I suggest that the text line w/ the article date should be changed from "This page was last edited on ___." to "This page was created ___ & last edited ___.".104.178.189.70 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. The WP:Village Pump/Proposals is the place to make suggestions like this. --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There's an userscript that uses mw:XTools to do what you're asking (and a bit more), but apparently userscripts, like other preferences, are only for logged-in users :( It's an entirely reasonable thing security-wise, though it does mean that a lot of cool features are only available to people with an account. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 16:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Rivers State Ministry of Transport

Good afternoon.

I made some edits yesterday on this page; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_State_Ministry_of_Transport. When I checked today, I found my edits had been removed.

I want to edit the name of the Ministry Executive or Commissioner and change the headquater address to the correct address.

I will be greatful if I can get all need supported.

Benxg (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Benxg, The issue is that you changed the information without changing / adding a source. Do you have a source for the floor change and the new commissioner, like a newspaper, book, or other reliable published source?

If you have not formatted a citation before, I can help you with that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, {U|Benxg}}. I see that you put a citation in the edit summary - it needs to go in the article. I tried to follow the URL you gave, but it fails. However, I think I've found the article here (the title is only part of what you gave). I was going to add that to the article to support your change, but it only says that "Mr Michael West" is appointed a Commissioner, not that Hon Ibabibo Michael West is the executive; i.e. it only supports part of your change (it also says nothing about the address). That is a good source, but you need to find sources to support the rest of what you say, and to cite them in the article. You also should not just have reapplied your edit without discussion after somebody reverted it: please see WP:BOLD --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Benxg: my ping was wrong so pinging you again. --ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine! I am sorry I missed the links in the edit summary. Time for caffeine!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

How do I get my article submitted

Hi, I would like to know how I get my article submitted. I have sources from the University of Missouri, but somehow I am not getting submitted. Huff-Slush 17:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huff slush7264 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Huff slush7264: If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

There have been four reviews of your draft, and each has pointed you at Help:Referencing for beginners. Please read that, and take account of what it says before trying to resubmit for further review. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sanju

The worldwide box office collection of Indian film Sanju stands at Rs 567cr till now... India gross - 427cr Overseas collection- 140cr Total=567cr... Then why wikipedia is still showing 528cr???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:6482:22ed::1d7d:90a5 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2018‎ (UTC)

If you have a source that lists the current gross, feel free to add it and the current numbers. I suggest you include the text "As of July 2018" (for example), since the number is still changing. You're better off posting this request on Sanju's talk page. BTW - this source lists the Indian domestic gross as of yesterday at only 333cr, so you'll want to check your numbers. [[4]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

common names

journey 2 is a Hollywood film , how to add journey 2 a Telugu language film , if the page is missing for the later? Crispgatoglitz (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Crispgatoglitz: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If the film meets the notability guidelines at WP:NFILM, you can create the article with a disambiguation added to the title. Maybe something like "Journey 2 (2018 film)". 331dot (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Why isn't there a bot that welcomes users like wikimedia commons?

It could be a great idea if a bot just welcomed users instead of people manually welcoming users. This makes me really sad that many new users aren't welcomed here. You are noot (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, You are noot. Personally, I think a human welcome is far, far better than an automated one, so welcome to the Teahouse! Actually you are incorrect in your assumption. English Wikipedia does indeed have a bot which automatically send out invitations to the Teahouse. It sends out around 100 a day, and you can find out more here. New editors are eligible to receive automatic invitations to the Teahouse from Hostbot if...

they created their account within the past 36 hours and have since made at least 10 edits.
the user has NOT already received an invitation to participate in Teahouse
the user has not been blocked from editing at any point since joining
the user has NOT received a level 4 user warning

So far, well over a quarter of a million new editors have been automatically welcomed in this way, and you can see them all listed at Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation. And please see this random example, which brought the new user here very recently with a question the following day, which we then answered for them. In fact, more often than not when I go to a user's Talk Page to leave a Talk Back notification that their question has been answered here, I do see they've already automatically received such an invitation, so I know it works. What new editors don't receive is the really helpful welcome message which I'm now also going to leave on your talk page which gives them a few really useful links to get them started. I can't decide whether to give you the one with a plate of cookies, or without them! For information, I'm pinging @Jtmorgan: who runs HostBot and who helped establish the Teahouse back in the day, and thank you so much for leaving your feedback here. Do shout out if you ever need any assistance with editing. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Problems on the talk page archiving

I have some problems on my talk page. On my talk page index, it clearly says that there are nothing archived. But after I look for it, there had been a serious amount of archiving. Can someone help me solve my archiving problem, possibly repairing the index?--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The template {{archives}} is expecting the archives in the form /Archive #, but you have them in the format /Archives/yyyy/Month. I tested replacing it with {{MonthlyArchive}}, but that didn't solve the problem. Iffy★Chat -- 15:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jeromi Mikhael and Iffy: I think that's because he'd need to be using {{archives by months}} for the navigation command. I'm not very hot on configuring archives, but I can't help wondering why you think you need a monthly archive at all - you simply don't have enough talk page messages to merit this massive subdivision (though I wish it were the format our own Teahouse archive would use). After another year or two, your current configuration will eventually make finding past discussions very difficult as each monthly archive will be very small, and there'll be lots to look through.

Rather than fiddle around by inserting {{archives by months|2018}} and so on, why not change archive structure to something much more sensible that only moves past discussions over once a set time period has elapsed (say 3 months) and then only creates Archive 2 once Archive 1 has got sufficiently big to warrant a second one? Example 2 at User:MiszaBot/config should do you nicely, though I might change (30d) to (60d) or (90d) to keep the latest discussions visible all in one place for longer. Hope this partial response is of help. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

While some of us may disagree with your choices, I've tried to honor those choices. I fixed your talk page {{archives}} template to {{archive box}} and expanded it with the {{archives by months}} template so it displays your existing archives properly. Automatic indexing of user talk page archives doesn't work currently, so far as I know, so I left that part out. The archives search box will work without an index. I had to remove the div you had placed around the archives section. I hope this meets with your approval.

You should note that the method of archiving you have chosen requires that you, once per year when a year begins, add the line for the new year's list of months to the {{archive box}} template. Just follow the example of the lines that are already there. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, jmcgnh. I would have done that for them had my skills with archive settings been up to it. But they weren't. I could only manage to get one year working when I tried. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sticky table headers

Greetings, I would like to suggest that the thead element or th elements in tables have the following style by default:

position: sticky; top: 0;

That way, very long tables are easier to understand as the column header stays visible as the user scrolls down. Thanks in advance, --Eduardo.bissi (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eduardo.bissi, welcome to the Teahouse. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option "Make sure that headers of tables remain in view as long as the table is in view". The code is in MediaWiki:Gadget-StickyTableHeaders.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-StickyTableHeaders.css. There are issues and I don't think it's currently suited as default. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

How to exclude an article from a search

If I search for something on which an article exists, say Polio, all I get is the article. How do I search for all the pages in which “polio” occurrs except for the article? Most often I need this in searching for pages to link to the article. I cannot find how in Help:Searching or in the archive of this page. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Help:Searching#Search box tells you two ways of doing it. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, this is what I needed. deisenbe (talk)

@Deisenbe: If you want to find what links to some page, just go to that page and choose the 'What links here' link from the side bar. Or go to the Special:WhatLinksHere page, or make a direct link with the page title appended, e.g., Special:WhatLinksHere/Polio. --CiaPan (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but that I know how to do. I’m trying to find unlinked pages, which perhaps should be linked. deisenbe (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: You may be interested in User:Lourdes/Backlinks. It makes searches like "Polio" -linksto:Polio. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Year of birth for Richard Jones Berwyn - Family bible

R.J.Berwyn

Hello,

I reverted an edit by Penderyn01 at Richard Jones Berwyn because they changed the year of birth in the article without adding a source here.

They are saying that Berwyn added his date of birth to a family Bible: He was born 31 October 1837 in Glyndyfrdwy.

My response was that's not a published source and isn't isn't verifiable. Can you find anything in a published source. Although it's generally frowned upon because they are primary sources, even a baptismal, birth record, or other public record would be something that would be verifiable. Or, perhaps you are aware of a reliable published source that I couldn't find for the 1837 birth year?

Can you help provide direction for this new user? Was my response right, or is there some way to reference a family bible that I am unaware of?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse CaroleHenson. I can see the conundrum, but your advice to Penderyn01 was spot on as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Many people, academics included, expect Wikipedia to report every correct piece of information that is known about someone. The reality is that Wikipedia can only summarise what has already been reliably published (even if what was published was wrong). The Welsh DNB article states 1836. We rarely pay much attention to what a person has written about themselves, whether they're a long-deceased 19th century colonist, or some minor TV celebrity of today. Nor, unfortunately, do we rely on unpublished archival material (which, as a retired museum curator myself, I find a shame, but there we have it). Having said that, I do have some sympathy with the Penderyn01 - there seem to be a number of published sources online which give his DOB as 1837. e.g. this, this (which specifically mentions the Oct 1837 date). I have no idea how reliable they are, though, at this stage. One way around it is to ensure that some authoritative source like a local historical society publishes a modern biography, presenting whatever evidence is available - this can then be referred to by Wikipedia. (A photo of the bible uploaded to Wikimedia commons might not go amiss - but there's very little there to permit verification - we seem to take every photo on trust there. But it's something that could well be discussed on the talk page, and maybe that might spark further research and future publication by proper historians. I note that Welsh and Spanish Wikipedia give 1838 as his birth year - so more fun to come, I suspect. Hoping this response helps a little. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk)

Thanks so much for your response and research, Nick! The first link is to a snippet in a genealogical book, which I thought is generally a problem unless it's a known reliable source. The second link that you provided was self-published... and so I thought that was not considered reliable (i.e., no editorial control). So, I personally wouldn't use either. But, if I am being too strict in my understanding of the guidelines, please say so.

I really like the idea of having a local historian publish an article - that would be a lovely solution - if Penderyn01 could manage that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I think all these ideas and alternative sources/interpretations should be aired on the article's Talk Page, where they'll remain for a long time to come and be useful to many future editors. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Nick. The article has only had 12 views in 30 days, so I'm not sure how much visibility it will get.

Perhaps for now we could use both sources (2 part-way sources come close to a whole good source, perhaps)... and mention on the talk page that this synchs up with the family Bible. I'll go ahead and add something to the talk page + add the two sources + change the year... and then if someone contests it, we can deal with it then.

Thanks, by the way, for posting the photo on the article page!!!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome Carole Seems a good solution to at least collate these conflicting or vague sources so they can be assessed by others. 6 years on I'm still hoping this request for information might someday yield an answer to a gravestone conundrum. Not holding my breath, though! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It isn't our job here to cross reference and analyse sources/photos/hearsay - that would be WP:OR. Sionk (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Help

I am trying to update the information on Wiki about my organization. I understand that I need to disclose that I am an employee and also that we cannot use language directly from our website. I am doing my best to follow the guidelines, but find myself unsure of how to proceed. Do I need to disclose that I have a COI each time I submit an edit - maybe in the description box? I appreciate any help you can offer. Much of our information is old and some is wrong so it is important that I figure this out. Any direction is much appreciated!

Kelsey KelseyEngelbracht (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KelseyEngelbracht. You have disclosed details of your paid editing on your user page, which is sufficient. To make edit requests on the talk page of the article concerned, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Countries

I tried editing a page for a country and used accurate info, why did it get deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RUSSIANEMPIREwwone (talk • contribs) 22:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello RUSSIANEMPIREwwone and welcome to the Teahouse.

Information that is not sourced will be removed, even if it might be accurate. I don't know for sure what happened in your case because you did not provide a pointer to the edit in question. Whenever you change a number in an article, expect it to be challenged if you are not changing the source being cited for the number. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Working on my first real Contribution

I'm working on my first real contribution and wanted to get some insight on anything that may need to be cleaned up or changed. It is on my Sandbox. I'm not sure if you can see it or not with the link. Can anyone take some time to help me out with this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlphaTJH/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaTJH (talk • contribs) 01:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@AlphaTJH: If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

fair use photo upload

I tried to add a fair use photo with the upload wizard directly to the wikipedia , but it didn't work , generating some token error , what it means and then telling it will take a minute or two but not uploaded yet , what's the way to check it , If not uploaded then what reasons assigned for denying permission so that I need not to try it again ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispgatoglitz (talk • contribs) 03:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

IPA- is it necessary to cite a source?

Sometimes I see articles with IPA pronunciation and sometimes the pronunciation is followed by a reference for the pronunciation from a dictionary, others times they are uncited without being followed by a ^{[citation needed]} maintenance tag. I was wondering if it's really necessary to include a reference for IPA pronunciation, because in my case I am editing an article about something in a different culture and there some foreign words that I could not find dictionary definition for. Radioactive Pixie Dust (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Radioactive Pixie Dust and welcome to the Teahouse.

That's an interesting question about IPA. In general, of course we would like to see a reference for the pronunciation. Sometimes people feel free to use their own knowledge to insert a pronunciation and this would normally be forbidden as original research. But it happens, nonetheless, and if it doesn't seem to bother other editors (who may have the same personal knowledge), these insertions are sometimes allowed to stand. When in doubt, don't add the unreferenced IPA. The lack of a pronunciation is a fairly minor flaw in an article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Radioactive Pixie Dust: As a general rule, everything that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs to be supported by a citation to a reliable source. As jmcgnh has said, something like an IPA gloss may get away with not being referenced as long as everybody agrees that it is obviously correct. But if there is any doubt, or another editor disagrees, then it should be removed until a source can be found, or tagged with {{citation needed}}. – Joe (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)