Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 827

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 820 ← Archive 825 Archive 826 Archive 827 Archive 828 Archive 829 Archive 830

Feedback please

HI, I am a very new contributor of Wikipedia, and I have made my debut by editing the article about Puhoi village in New Zealand several weeks ago. I have not heard anything from Wikipidia since, and the content I added does not look as it has been deleted in the "TALK" box. I would really appreciate if someone from Wikipedia team could get back to me either via Wikipedia Thank you in advance :) Warmest Regards, Victoria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria Kirichuk (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

At Puhoi, clicking on View history, I see three edits by you. The first was reversed by an editor as a copyright violation. The second used a flawed reference format, so it is invisible. The third appears as a reference, although it had to be fixed by another editor. David notMD (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Victoria Kirichuk. Generally, editors are not given feedback on the edits they make unless they really do something they shouldn't have done. Most of the time the good edits we make are simply built upon by others and any mistakes we make are simply corrected by others. If you're looking for personalized feedback, then you're probably going to have to ask for it here at the Teahouse or on the relevant article's talk page. You could also simply add the articles you edit to your watchlist and monitor their respective page histories for changes. If someone WP:REVERTS one of your edits or revises content you added, check to see if an edit sum was left explaining why or ask for clarification on the other editor's user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

How to move my article from the Sandbox while there is no button with move in my account

Hi goodmorning, I would like to publish my first article but I don't know very well how I can do that. I did already write a page in my Sandbox. I have some questions about it: first of all I get this message when I click on my name: Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:M.C.J.Hoelscher. If in doubt, please verify that "M.C.J.Hoelscher" exists. Further I do know that I have to move my article from the Sandbox to the real but there is no button more or move in my account. Should I start all over again? (I don't hope so...) Please can you help me? Many thanks! Rieteke — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.C.J.Hoelscher (talk • contribs) 07:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi M.C.J.Hoelscher. If you want to move the article yourself, you can do so by following the instructions in WP:MOVE; however, after looking at your sandbox, I would not suggest that you do this right now since such an article is likely to be tagged for deletion rather quickly since none of the content is supported by citations to reliable sources and it's not clear whether the subject is Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written. Instead, it might be better for you to carefully read through Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners and continue to work on the draft so that it has a better chance of being accepted as an article. Then, when you think it's ready to go, you should submit it for review via Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

FWIW, writing a proper Wikipedia article can be a pretty hard thing to do especially when you're a new editor who's not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; so, it might be better to learn more about what a Wikipedia article is intended to be by trying to improve existing articles and then apply what you've learned to your draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

How many drafts before a submission is ready for approval?

Following the helpful feedback of the Teahouse editors, I've amended several draft articles to reflect the recommendations of editors and hopefully they now meet Wikipedia standards. However, how many edits and feedback is typical before an article is approved? I'm quite keen to get this online after the previous amends that have been made but understand that it can be a process. Are there instances for example where in which an article can be approved with recommendations for continued improvements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAL123 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi DAL123. There are really no deadlines when it comes to a draft and you can submit it as many times as it takes until it's approved. As long as you don't just keep submitting the same declined version over and over again, you should be fine. Drafts only tend to get deleted when they haven't been worked on for quite a bit of time per (see WP:G13) or they have other serious problems which mean they can never be accepted as an article (see WP:GCSD); otherwise, they are usually left alone so that their creators can continue to work on them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Writing an autobiography

I need to write an article about myself and my accomplishments. I need to either find a writer, willing to assist me with this or write it myself. I need help crafting this article within the guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayayron joans (talk • contribs) 09:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ayayron joans, welcome to the Teahouse. If you "need to write an article about [your]self", I advise you to create a website where you can promote yourself to your hearts content, and use it to further your acting career. That's not what Wikipedia is here to do. We only care about you if, at this moment in time, you meet out WP:Notability criteria.  Draft:Aaron Jones (actor) fails in that regard, and you've had helpful feedback explaining why. Maybe it's simply WP:TOOSOON, and later on when you're walking up to collect your Oscar, you can wave two fingers at Wikipedia, and to me. But then you will have met the notability criteria for actors (set out in WP:NACTOR), and we'd love to have someone write an article about you. Whilst it's appreciated that you've declared your Conflict of Interest, I'm really not seeing anything yet to suggest an article is merited right now. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to realise why we strongly discourage people trying to write about themselves here. Sorry to disappoint. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Improvements

The article I've written on Jon Jashni has been tagged for cleanup to address neutrality and notability. I've disclosed my COI as I am associated with the company he runs but would like to request a review of the article. Based on what I have learned on Wikipedia:Notability (people) for creative professionals I feel the article cites numerous reliable sources that are independent of the subject, in addition to citing the significant role he played in his body of work. And the membership he holds with AMPAS, AFI, and PGA certainly denotes he is an important figure in his professional field. The user who added the tags has not yet responded to my request for help, so I'm hoping to get some help here. I'm fairly new to editing, so looking for some guidance. Please let me know how I might improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxx7291 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the problem is that the article fails to provide evidence that Jashni is notable. You say "I feel the article cites numerous reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; can you list a few sources that do that while including significant discussion of him? There are 27 references in the article, and I'm not going to check them all. But the first five all fail. 1 is based on an interview with him, and so is not independent. 2, 3 and 5 list his name, with no discussion at all. 4 does not even mention him. Maproom (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I can add sources to what is already cited. Are there any additional improvements I can make? And how might I request a review of the article so that those improvements might get seen and the tags removed?--Xxxx7291 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Xxxx7291
Don't reference bomb (excessive referencing). Winnow out all but high quality refs. David notMD (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
David notMD is right, I should have been clearer. When experienced editors say "the references aren't good enough", they're not asking you to add even more worthless references, they're asking to replace all the worthless references by a few better ones. Maproom (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I removed the COI template from the top of the article, as Xxxx7291 now properly declared as PAID contributor on the Talk page. Also removed a few of the non-suitable refs, but more winnowing needed. With proper referencing, my opinion is that Jashni is sufficiently notable in the Wikipedia sense to warrant this article, but I will leave that decision on the remaining template to editors more knowledgeable about the film industry. David notMD (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Article not sufficiant notable - confused

Hi,

I have a question. We write an article about a new project delivery methodology which is trademarked in Europe, US and Switzerland and used by the re-insurance market leader to manage a project of more than 200 millions. And we get the feedback that this article is not suffician notable.

on the other hand I see articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagile_software_development which describes the same methodology in a complete wrong way, in fact just a sentence by a person.

So, I am confused about what "not sufficiant notable" means. Does it mean that I need to personally know a person in the Wiki team to publish something?

I get more than 50.000 hits in goolge when searching for "Wagile"... Andreas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegando (talk • contribs) 06:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Andreas, Collegando and welcome to the Teahouse.
The article you were seeking a comparison with, Wagile software development is currently under discussion for deletion. The trend in that discussion is heading towards a conclusion that "Wagile" is not a notable software development methodology. You could participate there if you want to affect that conclusion. The outcome of that discussion will likely be taken to apply to your draft as well.
Other objections to your draft could have been brought up. It is very highly promotional, full of buzzwords and praise for how effective this approach has been. The diagrams you have incorporated would be questioned for whether they are copyrighted - for instance, the first diagram also appears in this copyrighted PDF.
Creating this draft appears to be the very first thing you have done towards editing on Wikipedia. The nature of the draft indicates you have not spent much time learning the policies and house style that need to be followed here. I'm not sure this is welcome advice, but you need to go over the instructions at your first article and NSOFT to see where you may have taken an unfortunate turn in your participation at Wikipedia. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, your mention that the methodology is trademarked in the United States, the EU, and Switzerland makes me think that the purpose of a trademark is to protect a market share, and that makes me think that your page may be promotional. Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote a product or a methodology, and promotional pages can be deleted as G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Andreas / Collegando. While I agree with everything my fellow editors have said above, I would like to address a particular aspect of your question – "what "not sufficiant [sic] notable" means" , because "notable" is a piece of Wikipedia jargon that doesn't have the everyday meaning you might have assumed.
For the purposes of Wikipedia, "notable" does not mean "important" or "widely-known." It means "sufficiently documented at length in material published by reliable sources completely independent of the subject." See Wikipedia:Notability for a much fuller discussion of this.
By reliable sources we mean such things as reputable newspapers, magazines or scientific journals (So for example: New York Times yes, Weekly World News no; Nature yes, Psychic News no).
By "independent" we mean not based on what the subject itself has said. This excludes all self-published material (such as on the subject's own website, in its own publications etc.), but also anything based on interviews with its representatives or press releases from it, even if these are published in the aforementioned reliable sources.
By "at length" we mean at least two (but preferably more) passages of at least several paragraphs entirely or largely about the subject, not passing mentions or entries in a list, however many of those there might be: those latter may be suitable as citations to corroborate specific facts about the subject, but not to support its notability.
It may be that there is not yet sufficient published material fulfilling these criteria on which to base a Wikipedia article (and unpublished material, including your (or my, or anybody's) own knowledge does not qualify). That is what those considering the article's deletion are attempting to determine. However, this may be merely a question of Wikipedia:Too soon, so an article may be possible some time in the future if the subject is successful in the real world and consequently is written about more by disinterested parties.
If you think the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense of the term, you need to demonstrate this by citing the sort of acceptable material I have described above and basing the article on it alone, not on what you personally know. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/90.212.15.178|90.212.15.178] (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
ALSO, you started with "We." Editors are required to be individuals. If you are a you, don't write "We." AND, the "We" suggests that you individually or as a group are associated with the company you are writing about. See WP:COI and WP:PAID David notMD (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you very much for your feedback.

I tried to write this article as precise as possible with as many facts as possible - like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_(software_development) - and I obviously spend some considerable time for this. I used graphs from the standard model as otherwise it would be my own interpretation, like the Scrum article does as well. It is now considered as being promotional, fair enough.

The discussion about hybrid project delivery strategies is not new though, there is many books and references about this topic. I unfortunately do not have a complete overview of all the different tendencies is this area, that is why I focused on only one methodology I know as the company I work for decided to apply this methodology. My motivation of writing this article was, that when I first heard about this methodology and was searching on Wiki, I only found this Wagile development article.

Please don't take it as a critic and don't get emotional, I just still did not fully understand how this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagile_software_development), which refers to a single blog of a single person is accepted and not considered as promotional, with the only working reference to a page saying in the title: "Jason Gorman's Software People Inspiring - Follow me on Twitter". Your argument that this article is under discussion to get deleted is not an argument why it initially has been accepted. It is even strange to me that you need to discuss so long about the deletion of an article which is obviously against your policies.

Anyway, I understood there is nothing I can do to publish anything around this topic as "there is not yet sufficient published material fulfilling these criteria", I will therefore not invest more time.

I honestly thank you for your time to explain everything to me. Many greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.26.20 (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. The existence of an article on Wikipedia does not mean that it has necessarily been "accepted" by anybody, ever. Nowadays, there are editors watching new pages and checking on their quality and suitability; but in earlier times many substandard articles were created. Often, a discussion like this brings such an article to people's notice, and it either gets improved (or at leaast, flagged for improvement) or deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Weird

I was trying to warn a user with Twinkle but when I did that instead of my name it showed Favonian and Drmies' usernames . After that it is fine . Can you say how that happened ? [1] and [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpgjhpjm (talk • contribs)

@Kpgjhpjm:, there is a problem with {{REVISIONUSER}} magic word. Being worked on in T203583. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Permission Error.

Yesterday I successfully added an image to a page ....Driving simulator...Today I tried to add another image to the Driving simulator page and this time it was was not inserted because of a Permission Error. Can anyone explain why and what I can do about it?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DriverSafety (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi DriverSafety, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not exactly clear what error you encountered, but it looks like you tried to invoke an image on the page that hadn't yet been fully uploaded to Commons. Once an image is uploaded there, you can put it in the article using e.g. [[File:filename.jpg|thumb|right|caption text|alt=description for those who can't see the image]]. If you keep having problems, please do ask again and be as specific as you can about what you've tried and what errors you've seen. › Mortee talk 17:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Question - are editors allowed to share personal info (such as real names)?

Hi everyone, quick question - A user asked for my full real name on my talk page, I reverted that edit since that was nonsense, but is asking for one's full real name allowed on Wikipedia?

The diff is - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IanDBeacon&oldid=858305716

Thanks so much, --IanDBeacon (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi IanDBeacon, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know a rule against asking a user for their own name. Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information does not mention it. But the post was clearly not about you. The user reverted an edit by you two minutes earlier [3] and mentioned the full name of a source in the edit summary. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi PrimeHunter, I was confused, didn't know if he was asking me for my name or not. Thanks so much again. IanDBeacon (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi IanDBeacon, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia editors are free to reveal as much or as little personal information as they like, and most choose to reveal very little indeed. Any attempt to find out more is distinctly against etiquette, and any attempt to reveal more than an editor has revealed themselves is WP:Outing, and is taken very seriously. The way the other editor phrased their message isn't at all clear, but I think they were trying to ask you about this edit of yours, which they reverted, because part of that change moved the full name "Edward C. O'Dowd" into the |last= field of a {{cite book}}, whereas "Edward" is of course the |first= name. In fact you reverted an IP editor seven times in the same way. You should probably read WP:3RR. › Mortee talk 17:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I have indeed read WP:3RR before, Mortee. I was trying to get the IP to stop doing so already before it got out of hand. IanDBeacon (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Understood. I haven't tried to read the full detail, but seven reverts in a row naturally doesn't look great. Anyway, I hope the message you asked about makes sense now. All the best, › Mortee talk 18:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Templates

Hi There!

I need to remove templates on the page below. I am in desperate need of help doing this. All of my updates are getting deleted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Borer

Thank you kindly,

Kelly --Thehappyworkaholic (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You asked this question, and recieved replies, yesterday on the Helpdesk. Please do not shop around for answers. You have been asked to post your proposed changes on the article talk page and told to read WP:BRD and WP:DR. That is what you need to do. - X201 (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thehappyworkaholic has declared on own Talk an on this article Talk a PAID relationship. Someone more experienced than me should decide if that is sufficient to remove the COI template from the article. David notMD (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The user has been repeatedly asked to post proposed changes on the article talk page, but has not, and instead has edited the article directly, so I have re-added the coi template. Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I am getting warned : Page blanking by the creator and only substantive contributor to a page and CSD:G7:

I am writing an artist page and keep getting the warning above. I think I may have accidentally deleted a tag or something, because I am not trying to blank or remove anything, I am just trying to create a page. Here is the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nancy_Kelly_(jazz_singer)

I started with an artist template from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Artist_biography_article_template and then made modifications

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks.

Jeff Berezin — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffBerezin (talk • contribs) 15:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello JeffBerezin. You absolutely did nothing wrong. What you're seeing is just an edit notice informing your of something that may be helpful to you. Continue your editing and do not bother about it. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@JeffBerezin: for what it's worth, I'm fairly experienced now and edit drafts sometimes as a reviewer at WP:AfC; that edit notice freaks me out every single time. › Mortee talk 17:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick responses! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffBerezin (talk • contribs)
Good, @JeffBerezin: and when you post at discussion pages, don't forget to sign your comments by appending for tildes (~~~~) at the end. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, got it! Thanks.JeffBerezin (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
JeffBerezin nicely done. (I too forgot to sign posts early on). Best of luck with Draft:Nancy Kelly (jazz singer) › Mortee talk 20:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The editnotice is confusing and not helpful. I have started a discussion requesting that it be changed at Template talk:Editnotices/Namespace/Draft#message_freaks_out_new_and_experienced_editors_editors --Vexations (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Permission to Use Wikipedia info in New Book

Hello -- I realize Wikipedia is free, and volunteer driven, but my attorney still suggested I write asking permission to use a few quotations from your Cannabis section, which will be used in a new book coming out this holiday season, "No More Weed In Our House," By Justin Daniels.

Please advise if I need anything further, other than to make a donation? Thank you, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:5700:2F80:454C:50E:1E9:E92B (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You already have that permission. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Anyone can re-use Wikipedia's text for any purpose, provided that you give proper attribution and re-release the content under the same or compatible license.
Donations are entirely voluntary. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
You seem more clued up than your attorney. Maybe you should be charging them for your advice. Maproom (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested Article...

How long should I wait after requesting an article be written by another editor, to just write it myself?

If I write it myself, can I then request other editor's help in editing it? If so, how can I do that?

Thanks in advance!

DevinAlmond (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Devin

Hello, DevinAlmond. There is no particular time that you can expect a Requested article to be picked up: many sit there for months or years. Anybody is welcome to create a new article, but be warned that creating an article is hard, and I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works and improving existing articles before they launch themselves into it. In any case, please start by reading your first article. I see you have made a declaration of your status as a paid editor, so I assume you have already read COI and WP:PAID. You are not forbidden from writing an article where you have a COI, but it is likely to be harder for you to be suitably neutral, and you can expect your draft to be closely reviewed.
Please note that the sources you mention in your entry at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Medicine/People in medicine do not any of them appear to be a suitable source for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is basically uninterested in anything said, done, or published, by the subject of an article, or anything said about them by their friends, relatives, or associates, except insofar as those sayings or activities have been written about by people unconnected with the subject. This excludes anything based on an interview or press release.
In order to write an article, you would need to start by finding several places where people who have no connection whatever with Mueller have written about her, in some depth, in reliably published sources. (It would be worth your looking for these anyway, to add them to your RA posting: without them, anybody who considers taking on the article would need to go looking for these themselves). Be sure not to omit sources critical of her, if there are some of these. Then forget absolutely everything you know about her and what she has done, and write an article based only on what these sources say. Afterwards you can add in a small amount uncontroversial factual information (such as places and dates) from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What Should I do With This Message?

I tried publishing an article 3 times and I got this message: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." What should I do? Add more citations or make them better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearsome876 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Fearsome876 and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you've also asked the same question at the AfC Help Desk. Please confine yourself to one question-answering forum at a time. Only if you don't get a response after a couple of days should you conclude that you need to ask elsewhere.
If you've read the guidelines on notability for musicians, you'd begin to see the sort of references needed to establish notability. We don't simply need to establish that the artist and their works exist. We need independent, in-depth coverage of the artist published in reliable sources. There's quite a long list of things that don't help in establishing notability and until you understand the difference between, say, reliable references, and notability references, this is going to seem mysterious to you.
Give the response from the reviewers, it means that you don't have notability references amongst the citations already in the draft. In many cases, the best approach is to start over!! Find the references that establish notability according to NMUSIC and summarize a very short stub of an article based only on what's present in those notability references. If these references do establish notability, your draft should be accepted. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

5 Leaf Clovers?

Should there be a page on 5 leafed clovers? I know there is one on 4 leafed clovers, but should there be one on 5 leafed ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B125:17A2:3ADE:ADFF:FEAB:946A (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

2600:1012:B125:17A2:3ADE:ADFF:FEAB:946A, four-leaf clover#Multi-leaved cultivars currently covers 5 leafed clovers, and unless it can be expanded to the point of making the main article unwieldy, it's probably more useful to add whatever information needed there, and make redirects to it if necessary. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit Removed

Hello, curious as to why edits get removed and what I can do to reinstate the information? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Blake5813 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello J.Blake5813 and welcome to the Teahouse.
Most of the time, when an edit is removed, the reason for the removal is given in the edit summary. When there is nothing in the edit summary, you may ask the performer (if it isn't a bot) to explain why the edit was removed. In some cases, usually when it is overwhelmingly obvious that the removed edit was vandalism, the edit summary might be omitted on purpose.
In my experience, aside from vandalism, the most common reason for an edit to be reversed is because it introduced new material without citing a source, followed by unexplained removals of sourced material. When these two things happen, the editor is expected to provide at least some indication about why, but the edit summary may sometimes be brief to the point of being cryptic.
But in looking at your edits, I see that you tried to add people to a list that is supposed to contain "notable" people who meet the criteria for inclusion on the list. The "notable" part means that we expect the person to meet WP's notability standards and have their own article on WP. See WP:LISTBIO for a bit more information. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, J.Blake5813. It appears that you added James Blake and Katherine Blake to List of transgender people back in July. Those listings were removed because neither person has a Wikipedia biography. The other people on that list have biographies. So, you could add those people if you wrote acceptable, well-referenced biographies of them first. There is a possible problem, though. Your username indicates that you may possibly have a conflict of interest regarding these people named Blake. If so, please proceed cautiously. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A question regarding an article that doesn't exist, and it’s creation is being blocked in error

There is no article for the term Expletive, and I think there needs to be. There are articles for Syntactic expletive and Dummy pronoun which are fine, but they are different — they both refer to a particular kind of expletive, and not the most common. If you search Wikipedia for Expletive it sends you to a disambiguation page. And Wikipedia will not allow an article on Expletive, because it says there already is an article — which there isn't. I wanted to write an article on the term, so I'm interested in a suggestion on how I might proceed. Thank you. Cottonwalyer (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cottonwalyer, welcome to the Teahouse. Would the new article also be different from the topics covered by Profanity and Expletive attributive? (That last one isn't currently mentioned on the disambiguation page, but perhaps should be) › Mortee talk 17:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi, Cottonwalyer, you can start writing the article at Draft:Expletive, and when it's ready for mainspace then made a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. It will then be moved to mainspace for you. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
(I was wrong above; the attributive is linked to on the dab, I didn't just find it that way). › Mortee talk 17:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
(I thought I had posted this comment a while earlier today.) To respond first to Mortee, yes, an article on "Expletive" differs from those two highly limited articles. "Expletive" is the bigger, older, all inclusive, umbrella term. And those other articles are recent and highly limited to particular smaller things, that perhaps could be said to derive from "Expletive". And Ammarpad and Mortee, thank you very for your responses.Cottonwalyer (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Cottonwalyer, that's great. It sounds like a very useful article to have written. It also sounds like it's intended to cover all the topics currently being disambiguated between, except perhaps profanity, with links out to the other articles for more detail. If that's right, it might be simplest to overwrite Expletive (disambiguation)Expletive, rather than keeping a separate disambiguation page. Maybe add a hatnote to Profanity for readers who had that specifically in mind. Just a thought, anyway. › Mortee talk 20:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC) (Edited 20:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC))
I added a one-sentence subheading to cover "profanity". It's an improvement. (I only had to add the heading). Thanks, Mortee. Cottonwalyer (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I did see that you'd mentioned it already, just not linked to the page. My thought was that if this article replaces Expletive (not Expletive (disambiguation) as I wrongly wrote above), you could replace {{Other uses}} at the top with {{See also|Profanity}}, as a quick redirect for readers who have found themselves in the wrong place. A brief section like the one you've started that covers the use of expletives in forming profanity, with either a simple wikilink or with a {{main article}}, is another perfectly sound approach. Thank you for writing the draft. › Mortee talk 21:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. I replaced Expletive with the draft article. It seems to have worked. Thank you very much. Cottonwalyer (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN, Cottonwalyer, Mortee, Ammarpad, and Frayae: The way the current content at Expletive was added is, I think, a problem. This edit completely replaced the older content. But as a result the redirect Expletive (disambiguation) is no longer pointing to a disambiguation page. Moving the older content there would constitute a cut-and-paste move, which breaks article history and is therefore to be avoided.
It also looks like there was something at Draft:Expletive, but it was deleted as CSD-G7 on 5 September 2018. I don't know whether that might also have been a problematic cut-and-paste. Perhaps an administrator could perform the necessary Wikipedia:REFUNDs and history merges? Alternately, if this seems to require more discussion, that should take place at the proper venue. I'm not certain where that would be, but this thread is probably not sufficient. Cnilep (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Cnilep, the draft was created yesterday by one editor in about three edits, so the cut and paste move didn't lose any significant information and histmerge isn't necessary. Now it's deleted I can't double check this, but an admin could, if you're still concerned. Expletive (disambiguation) only has one page linking to it, which is easily changed, and the new Expletive to which it still redirects has links to the various topics that were being disambiguated between, so it functions equally well as a disambiguation page, to my mind. I should have been clearer in my reply that I meant it as a proposal to see what others thought, but I don't think the way the new page was created has caused any problems. If you're seeing issues I'm not, do let me know (perhaps on the article talk page?) and I'll help to resolve them if I can. › Mortee talk 06:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Here's the situation: There was quite a decent draft article at Draft:Expletive, written by Cottonwalyer. It was the same as the current content of the article. Cottonwalyer was the only one to edit the draft page. On 9/5 they blanked it and tagged it G7. I deleted it. Cottonwalyer then pasted that content into Expletive, covering up the DAB. Ideally we 1) should restore that DAB material (the version last edited by Cnilip on 1/14/16) which would keep the history, 2) move the page to Expletive (disambiguation) without leaving a redirect, 3) restore Draft:Expletive, and 4) move it to Expletive which would retain the draft's history. Does this make sense? Should I or someone do it? And while we are at it let’s explain to Cottonwalyer about using Move instead of copy-paste. --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining the situation. That is basically what I assumed had happened. Also, your proposed actions are pretty much exactly what I had in mind. Unless anyone else objects, I think that would be a fine thing to do. FWIW, I left a message on User talk:Cottonwalyer pointing to this discussion. Cnilep (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, done. There may be some cleaning up to do, including adding "Expletive" to the DAB page, and the appropriate hatnote to the new article, but I'll leave that to the rest of you. If I messed anything up let me know. BTW I am amazed that we managed to get through this whole discussion without ever saying (Expletive deleted). (There, I said it!) --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Cnilep I got the message regarding "Move", and thanks to everyone for all the thought and help. Hugely appreciated. Best, Cottonwalyer (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

profile

Hello,

I am Doctor and I created my profile. kindly guide me to make it like. I have published on wikipedia but still its not searchable,

Regards,

Dr Satish Aggarwal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggarwalpaedsurg (talk • contribs) 07:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aggarwalpaedsurg: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I tagged your user page with CSD criteria U5. Please note that Wikipedia is not a place for promotion and your user page should not contain too much personal information that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Regards —AE (talk • contributions) 07:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Please also note that user pages are not indexed for search engines like articles are. Please see Wikipedia:User pages for an explanation of what user pages are for. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

If my profile has personal content. Can is suggest my team to put brief details of work and achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggarwalpaedsurg (talk • contribs) 11:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aggarwalpaedsurg: I moved your new post from its separate section into this existing section - please don't start new sections unless you have a new question that's unrelated to the previous discussion. Wikipedia user pages are not "profiles", and I'm afraid the answer is no - you cannot use it as such. Please have a look at the information in the links provided by the editors who replied to your first question. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 12:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Your User page and the Sandbox content now deleted as being promotional. Editors of Wikipedia join to work on Wikipedia, not promote themselves. Editors do not have 'profiles.' Any 'personal' content should be limited to credentials that elaborate on your expertise as a Wikipedia editor. Mine for example, states PhD Nutritional Biochemistry, but no details about my career.
"My team" is another red flag. Users are supposed to be individuals. If you have staff you have instructed to create an article about you, they should each have their own User page and must adhere to WP:PAID requirements for disclosure. David notMD (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

language links

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T203750

I use Wikipedia in multiple languages. Until recently the language links on the left hand side was a complete list, but apparently it was decided to reduce this to a short list with a box "other" you could click on, revealing the complete list classified by continentMountparnassus (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC). This was annoying but I could live with it.

But now clicking on the box "others" has no effect whatsoever.

How do I find the same article in other languages now ?

Huh, Firefox does not collapse the list, but I just tried Chrome and I also see that the box does not work. Chris857 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it's a difference of being logged in vs logged out. In your preferneces Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering-languages, uncheck "Use a compact language list, with languages relevant to you.". However, the button definitely has a problem. Chris857 (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Same issue here with Firefox. I have created a Phabricator task for this issue (see above - feel free to add additional relevant details). Thank you for pointing this out. GermanJoe (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Chris857. I didn't realise it was in my preferences.Mountparnassus (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhuvan Bam

Hi, at this AFD I posted a keep vote but when it was published the nominator had withdrawn the nomination a minute earlier, then I closed it as speedy keep but then had second thoughts as I had participated in the discussion and reverted the close. Can someone please advise and close the AFD as nomination withdrawn, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with AfD, but I don't think it's a problem to close one if it's been withdrawn by the nominator so quickly, even if you technically participated in the discussion. I've closed it now. rchard2scout (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Profiles

Hello,

Kindly guide me to create basic profiles of doctors doing excellent jobs in their respective field.

Regards,

Vikram Gaur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikramgkaushik (talk • contribs) 11:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Vikramgkaushik! Welcome to the Teahouse. The shortest answer about creating personal profiles at Wikipedia is: you don't.
Wikipedia is not for promotion and it does not contain 'profiles' (please kindly see WP:PROMO and WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA for more detailed explanation). You might be also interested in the whole page explaining Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --CiaPan (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I talked about the profiles like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarlagadda_Nayudamma

I want to create such profiles for doctors doing excellent work in their field.

Regards,

Vikram — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikramgkaushik (talk • contribs) 12:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

That is not a "profile"; it is an article about a subject who is notable in Wikipedia's terms. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
But if you know of such doctors/subjects, there is guidance at Wikipedia:Your first article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Glossary within an article.

Hi Fellow Wikipedians! Would it be normal to put a glossary within an article. I specifically asking about it in regards Funkabwehr. I could put explanations inline, which I guess would be the normal, but it has its own terms which are in world sort of thing. One of the entries in the glossary, would G-V-games or G-V Games, another would 2-Ic or 2 Ic (still have a question at the Humanities reference desk to determine what it exactly exactly. I suspect there wouldn't be that many, although there is several document references with and several book references with associated content, to be woven in different sections in the article, possible with their own sections, so there additional entries, maybe about a twelve entries. It seems reasonable, but I've never see any article with glossary within, so far, so wide of the mark. What do you think? Thanks.scope_creep (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Found the glossary guide, in the Style guide. scope_creep (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Does copyediting need to be reviewed?

As a new editor, an article about a Gujarati book was suggested to me -- Gujarati Tunki Vartama Pariveshni Karyasadhakta. There was a lot in the Synopsis that was unclear, so I hope my edits made things clearer, rather than changing any meanings. Is it important to document what changes I made in an article and why I made them? I see that other editors' comments are cryptic. Do the edits get referred back to an editor knowledgeable on the topic, or to the original writer? What if I have questions about something that isn't clear? There was a word that I had never seen before, Dilectual, and I couldn't deduce whether it was a misspelling of something else. I see that a later editor removed the term. I wondered if I should remove the copyediting alert, but others found a few more items to fix, so perhaps it was best to leave it. I was also surprised about the article itself. It didn't seem to meet the notable standard; but in India, perhaps it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamMusic (talk • contribs) 02:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello PamMusic. No, copyediting does not need review by anyone. If you have questions about something that's not clear in the page, then you should ask at the page's talk page, in this case Talk:Gujarati Tunki Vartama Pariveshni Karyasadhakta. On your third question, yes, you can remove that notice once you're reasonably sure that the problem is addressed see Help:Maintenance template removal for more information on this. Articles that doesn't meet the requirement for inclusion are deleted daily through several means, you can read Wikipedia:Deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion process to learn about that.–Ammarpad (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@PamMusic: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can find help for copy editing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to. There are higher expectations for copy editing good and featured articles, but for start-class articles like Kavilok and Gujarati Tunki Vartama Pariveshni Karyasadhakta just try to make sure they're comprehensible. (You can find the class rating on the article's talk page.) Your copy edits look good, BTW! Happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking for help on my first edit of a page

 
Umatilla Rock

Hi,

I'm excited to make my first edit! I'll be adding a new section to Sun Lakes-Dry Falls State Park about Umatilla Rock. I don't have much information on the rock, but it is a major part of the park. I recently hiked the area and I feel it's worthy of inclusion on the page. I also have one photo that I would like to add as the main photo for the section.

So, my questions are...

  1. Does the rock deserve its own section on the page?
  2. All detailed information I gathered about the rock is from Google Maps. This includes location of the rock and its approximate length and width. I couldn't find anything else from the State Parks, or anywhere. Is this ok for a source? As far as the length of the trail, I gathered that from my own GPS app as I hiked it. However, there is a Washington Trails Association entry on the trail, so maybe use that as a source instead (although all entries on that site are still just crowd-sourced by people like myself)?
  3. The entire text only consists of three very small paragraphs. Is this enough for a new section?

Thanks in advance for your help! Where should I upload my prepared text for you to take a look at? The Talk page I'm guessing?

KrakenSeas (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  • @KrakenSeas: As a matter of principle, everything that you would write needs to be referenced to a reliable source. However, "reliable" depends on context, so for instance this WTA source seems enough to support "Umatilla Rock stands in the Monument Coulee", barring information to the contrary. Getting the length of the trail from your GPS data, or the rock dimensions from Google Maps, constitutes original research and should be avoided; however, the wta link I just gave seems to be a curated guide, not a user-generated content, so that would be enough for "5 miles" as length of trail, I think.
Whether the rock "deserves" a section, or a mention at all, depends entirely of the sourcing, so as not to give it undue weight. If sourcing is here, the sectioning does not really depend on the size of the text you intend to use; sections are about the logical organization of content, some may be longer than others.
Do not upload your text to the talk page, but be bold and edit the article directly. If there is something wrong with your edit, it will be reverted (hopefully with an explanation); do not take it personally, try to understand the reason and discuss if needed (that is called the bold-revert-discuss cycle). TigraanClick here to contact me 07:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, KrakenSeas. I did a Google search and found some promising sources about this geological formation that may justify a section (or at least a mention). It is up to you to study the sources to see if they qualify as reliable sources. You can use mapping software as a source for the exact location of something. But you cannot draw any conclusions or make any evaluations from what you observe on Google Maps. That would be original research, which we do not allow. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, KrakenSeas. It's a great sense of empowerment, isn't there, when you've made your first edit to improve the worlds greatest encyclopaedia? You are welcome to upload your own photo to Wikimedia Commons and then insert it into the article. You might like to check out this 'Category' of images already there, in case they're of use, too. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Umatilla_Rock. Good luck and best wishes at the start of your own personal Wikipedia Adventure. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your responses! Let's see if I know how to tag each of you... User:Tigraan, User:Cullen, User:Nick Moyes

This is all a lot of information to take in, and the user interface is quite difficult to understand. But I'll work away at including the content in the coming days. I'll also upload a personal photo of Umatilla Rock to Commons and use that one on the page.

Why are some of your usernames green while others are blue? And why isn't everyone's signature automatically added after each published change they make? It's hard to tell if the first three paragraphs are all from a single user or from three users but two of them have no signature.

Thanks again! KrakenSeas (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, KrakenSeas. Good question about the colour of user signatures. By default, these are always blue hyperlinks unless an editor (like Tigraan) has specifically chosen to use a fancy font colour, changed their signature font, or used a background colour. This is done via the Special:Preferences link at the top of the page, but I suggest you've a lot more important things to learn about first! The apparent lack of a signature in answers is simply the result of an editor choosing to separate their comments into paragraphs - so generally assume that two blocks of text with a signature after just the second one are actually from the one person (if that makes sense). We use indenting to help distinguish one person's reply from the previous comment. We do this by typing one or more colon characters at the start of the first sentence in each paragraph. Each colon used indents the paragraph a further bit.
But sometimes you'll see a block of text from a new editor who has asked a question here but, rather annoyingly for us, hasn't signed it. Then, some while later, an automatic 'bot' will come along and add their signature for them. This bot action is really useful as otherwise we don't know who is asking the question, or how to reply. To find out who said what in that case, we have to go to the 'View History' tab of that page and look at each comment that has been left by one editor or another to work out who it's from. (There you'll see a radio button against each historical edit - this allows you to compare selected revisions to see exactly what was added, and by whom. Good luck with uploading your photograph, and do pop back if ever you don't understand anything. The volunteer hosts here are always keen to help any new editor... and sometimes the not-so-new, too! I'm still learning a lot from seeing responses to questions that I couldn't answer myself. Yes, it is a steep learning curve, and you're bound to make a few mistakes at first and, of course, learn from them along the way. The one thing I'll tell you which I didn't know for the first 6 months of my editing life is that you don't have to manually code every reference - both of our two editing tools (Source Editor and the Visual Editor) each have drop-down templates via a 'Cite' button which you simply fill in with the relevant details (author, title, date of publication, url, etc). I really wish I'd known that from the start, as it took me hours to get them right by hand! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)  

How do I create multiple spaces?

There is one space character between each word in this sentence. How do I create multiple space characters between words? 

Like  this (2 spaces)

or 

like     this (5 spaces)?

If I put multiple spaces between words in normal text, it will always show up as only one space. Is there a template I can use? Thanks Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 17:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Koopatrev, welcome to the Teahouse. The answer might depend on what the situation is. I don't think it's usual to add multiple spaces in ordinary prose. There are some templates for code snippets, others for block quotations, there's {{nbsp}} to prevent lines breaking at certain points and {{spaces}} to generalise that, etc. We can probably help better given a little more detail about what you're trying to achieve. › Mortee talk 19:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi mortee, I actually just need a long space between words, and I was thinking maybe multiple spaces could achieve that. I want something like a longer space between the number and the item in a numbered list, eg
  1. Item

Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 19:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Koopatrev, you could use an en-space or em-space, as I've tested here. You can do this by using the HTML entities &ensp; or &emsp; directly in the source wikitext. Apparently {{spaces}} can also insert these, by using {{spaces}} or {{spaces}} (where N is the amount of spaces you want). See that template's documentation for more info. rchard2scout (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Koopatrev you can use multiple non-breaking spaces (&nbsp;&nbsp;) or a combination of regular and non-breaking spaces for a multiple-width space. This is okay for your user space but I wouldn't recommend it for an article. If you're trying to get multiple rows of text to line up, use a table. If you want to give some text extra emphasis, then there are other style recommendations for that. I could try to give you a specific Manual of Style link but I'm not sure of the specifics and the effect you're going for. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_827&oldid=859015308"