Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 476

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 470

←

Archive 474

→

acceptable source for living american actress

I'm adding a page for well known living American actress - Bertila Damas - and have been told that IMDB is not an acceptable source. What is?

Thanks,

Wdcharlton (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wdcharlton. The answer is, sources with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. iMDB, (like Wikipedia) is largely user-generated, so not reliable. Please see WP:IRS for more information.

If you are no aware of this, I wonder if you have read WP:your first article? I recommend reading that carefully before starting something as difficult as writing a new article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and for the suggestions. Wdcharlton (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wdcharlton. The article you have written, Bertila Damas, includes in its first sentence, "known for her no nonsense approach to acting and life as well as her irreverent sense of humor, her compassion, and a straight-up, no-crap kind of energy." That is subjective and overtly promotional language that should never be used in Wikipedia's voice. Whose opinion is that, anyway? Yours? I believe that she is notable and should have an article. Your job is to identify the truly reliable sources that have devoted significant coverage to her, and summarize what they say, from the neutral point of view. Please also read Referencing for beginners, and format your references so that they do not display as ugly, uninformative URLs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether all those sources are reliable or not, but one thing I did notice is that the article's text engaged in very close paraphrasing – enough so that it was bad enough to be a possible copyright violation. I cleaned up some of it and removed a lot of puffery. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Table Formatting & Small Caps

I'm using the Visual Editor for adding tables to a rough draft of a page in my Sandbox. I'm having trouble changing the formatting of the content within the tables, with the exception of italicizing. The first row in particular seems to be in bold, and resists my attempts to change that. Anyone have any tips on formatting tables?

Second question: how do I write in small caps?

RlndGunslinger (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

While uploading image file, getting "Unknown Error" message on a Red box.

Here is the message.

Unknown error: "{"xhr":{"readyState":0,"status":0,"statusText":"timeout"},"textStatu

What does it mean? and how to fix it? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Rit Rajarshi. I don’t know for sure but I’ll take a guess. Wikipedia went through some maintenance earlier today, and this place was in read-only mode for a period of time. If you attempted to upload an image at that time, it would not have worked. I can’t say for sure, but I urge you to try again now and if you get the same error will know it wasn’t the maintenance mode issue.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much.. However I've seen the warning on top of the wiki page. However in other times also, the warning came. This was taking place due to Slow network connection. Now it seems ok. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Help with Searching

Help! I can't find my account with a list of episodes guide for my sandbox page! My account disappeared this morning!TheLuckySeven6400 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Accounts don't disappear. Perhaps the account you are looking for is GoldForTheWin0000, or one of the accounts listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GenoCool2016/Archive? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

But if you created a sandbox with material inappropriate for Wikipedia, that may have been deleted, as you have been told several times before. --ColinFine (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Promotion

Good morning, I have a question, I've written a book but I'm having a,really hard time getting someone to help me promote it. I know of u tube I've yet done that route though. But if u can lead me in a direction to get it out there among our world. It's a great read, I just need people to know of it. I believe it can help so many folks get past the traumatic experiences in their life and turn out to be really happy folks in our world. If u can lead me, or help me getting it out here please show me the way. Thanks for hearing me.I greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janaehill (talk • contribs) 13:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. There are plenty of places on the web which you can use for advertising, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. See WP:Promotion. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If you were intending to try to write a Wikipedia article about your book, Janaehill, then David is correct that this would be inappropriate. If you are just looking for advice on book promotion, then this isn't the place to ask. The Teahouse is a place to learn about editing Wikipedia. You might be able to find help at Wikipedia:Reference desk, however. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

How to link an article so that I couldn't count as orphon specially when article title is different and the text available in other article is different?

How to link an article so that I couldn't count as orphon specially when article title is different and the text available in other article is different?Nicgf (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find info at WP:Wikilink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Making my draft notable

Hello, I have been working on Draft: Juana Bordas for quite some time. I think that I’ve used many reliable, third-party sources and demonstrated her notability, but the article has been rejected several times. Can someone give me additional guidance? Or is there a way to get a second opinion? Bonanza425 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Bonanza425. Without looking into the specific subject of your draft, I would point out that the concept of notability applies to the subject of an article (or draft), not the article itself. You can improve an article to demonstrate the notability of the subject, but if the subject isn't notable, then no amount of editing will make them so. That might (but might not) be the case here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you are writing this draft article about yourself, please note that this is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia:Autobiography. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Create an article.

One last question, How can I create a Wikipedia article?THXGold2004 (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this going to be about a real subject or another of your fantasies? Nthep (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Read the hints and advice given in WP:YFA. You might also want to use the article wizard at WP:WIZARD to help you. RudolfRed (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Merging K-Pop fans

Hi, I just tried to merge the page 'K-Pop fans' into 'K-Pop', particularly the section 'Appeal and fan base', but it didn't work. Was that because that section is a sub-section? (if that makes sense?) I've just recently copy edited the whole K-Pop page and I'm pretty sure it covers everything on the K-Pop fans page, so I wanted to just redirect the whole thing. I was having a hard time with the merger instructions page though. If someone could help me out with how to merge these two pages, I would really appreciate it! Thanks :) Yannaynay (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Yannaynay, and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you removed the content from K-pop fans, but didn't add it to the K-pop article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for replying! I deliberately didn't add any of the content to the new article because, as I said, I think it covers all the information already. But I don't think the actual redirect worked for some reason...? I could just be misunderstanding how redirects work. Yannaynay (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Yannaynay. One thing you did – and I understand why and think the instruction page should be tweaked slightly to remove the issue that caused you confusion – is that instead of replacing the example parameters using angle brackets ("<" & ">" with the name, you kept those symbols in – and so your copyright attribution link in your edit summary failed. For example, if the page at issue was call "Foo", and you were told to insert it in parameter=<name> you would not then be placing parameter=<foo> but parameter=foo. If I was unfamiliar, I think I might make the same error, or certainly not be sure whether those symbols should be kept in or not. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, it seems I didn't read your question in full, Yannaynay. Apologies for that. As Fuhghettaboutit notes, the problem was with your formatting of the redirect. The correct code to use is #REDIRECT [[K-pop#Appeal and fan base]]. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Aha–I didn't even look at the redirect, which from your post I surmise had the same formatting issue. I was talking about the edit summary attempt at a link as a first step in the merge.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit and Cordless Larry, thank you so much for your help! I've corrected that mistake and merged the two pages, hope I've followed the guidelines properly. Yannaynay (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The redirect now works, Yannaynay, so that's great. I don't know if we actually need the "This is a redirect from a page that was merged into another page" message, if no material was actually moved from one article to the other. Any ideas, Fuhghettaboutit? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I noted in the page history that no merge actually took place, and removed the {{R from merge}} template that produced that message. I tend to think of a lot of the R from templates as background noise, but some users actually use them so it's good not to leave that artifact.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

What All Do I Need To Know To Make An Article

So, I am going to this website called codecademy and learning things like Java. What all, from that website, would you guys say I should learn before I start making articles on here? Please answer me as soon as possible and look at what all you can learn about on codecademy before responding please. I can't wait to start making a article on here.

-From, Caleb

Caleeeb (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Caleeb, and welcome to the Teahouse. Why is everybody so keen to create a new article? We have five million articles already, and at least four million of them are not very good: why not work on improving some existing articles before you plunge into the very difficult job of creating a new article from scratch? --ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Putting information in Wikipedia, which isn't checked by anyone on thruth.....

If anyone can place information in Wikipedia, about any subject, and this isn't checked by anyone, isn't there a big risk that (some) people place untrue knowledge about (some) subjects? 213.10.60.93 (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Quite right, every day someone puts lies or other bad things in Wikipedia. No,every day thousands of us use our WP:Watchlist to check and fix. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Which of course, doesn't mean every last untrue statement gets caught. There is probably always some innaccurate information somewhere on Wikipedia, but then there are always errors in newspapers and books too. We've decided it's worth the risk because every day, lots of people put good information on Wikipedia, more than the lies. We can always use helpers like you to help us keep the encyclopedia as accurate and complete as possible. Happy Squirrel (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Problems with my first page

Hello Everybody, I'm trying to create a page about one of the most important financial business man in Brazil: Jose Olympio Pereira's page; and the most important Brazilian Contemporary Art collector, with a presence in some of the councils of the most important museums of the world. I'm stating that because he is really one of the most important businessman of Brasil. But, all the times we tried to publish the page, an administrator block the page and delete it. Does somebody knows whats happening? Thank you very much! Edgardaugustodias (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. User:Edgardaugustodias/sandbox is not in English, and all of the s-called "references" are Wikipedia links, which are unacceptable (see WP:circular). --David Biddulph (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Edgardaugustodias. I checked at the Portugese Wikipedia, and there is no article about Jose Olympio Pereira on that encycledia, although I saw an article about someone with a very similar name, perhaps his father, who died in 1990. So, it is somewhat strange that you are writing a draft in the Portugese language here on the English language Wikipedia when no Portugese article yet exists. That language problem here can be corrected by translating your draft to English, but your referencing is a more serious problem. Please realize that an acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. Another Wikipedia article (in any language) is never a reliable source. Your draft has no reliable sources. A quick Google search indicates that this person may be notable. But is your obligation to demonstate that convincingly, by the quality of your references. Please read Referencing for beginners and Your first article, and follow the excellent advice you will find in those essays. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Help with article requested

"Article for inclusion - The Memorial 'Mob'"

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am really not sure of the format, first time to attempt a request of this kind, this so apologies in advance.

I was wondering if someone could assist please in creating a page for The Memorial 'Mob' a not for profit group who create memorials (working on Charity Status over the next year), mainly for the lost and forgotten events of the Armed & Emergency Services. Some of our resources/social media are listed below if that assists.

http://thememorialmob.webs.com/

https://www.facebook.com/memorialmen/

https://twitter.com/Thememorialmob

We currently have over 50 projects on the books and they range from small memorials such as the ones to the Sutton Wick Air Crash to ones of National Importance for 2018 and would like to enable the World to rediscover them again, through the resource that is Wikipedia as it is the first point of call for most of us.

The next memorial will be to Buster the dog that saved a 1000 lives at RAF Waddington this summer, Buster should probably have his own page as well, if that is possible?

Thank you for any assistance you can offer and apologies for not having a clue!

Regards

Iain Founder of the Memorial Mob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipper115 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

placed here by Drmies (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Iain. If you feel that your organization meets the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), then you can post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Establishing your organization's Wikipedia notability is the key, and the way to do this is show that "The Memorial 'Mob'" has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Please note that anything the organization says about itself or anything somebody closely connected to the organization says about it is likely to be considered a primary source and, thus, not helpful in establishing Wikipedia notability. In other words, I can tell the world all about myself on my personal website or Facebook/Twitter accounts, but that just proves I exist. If, however, a major newspaper, magazine, etc. with a strong reputation for editorial control writes about me and my activities (good or bad) in some detail, then that might be enough for somebody to write a Wikipedia article about me. So, that is what you need to establish. Finally, from your use of "our" in your post, I get the impression that you might be connected to the TMM. If that's the case, then you would have what Wikipedia calls a conflict-of-interest. COI editing is not expressly prohibited on Wikipedia, but it's highly discourage because it's tricky to do. You probably should take a peek at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for some more information on this. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

That Is The Last Straw!

Sorry, I got off on the wrong side there. I want to make a fictional episode guide and me being told I am not able to do it on Wikipedia made me just mad. I am not here to annoy. I am here to edit, But what is the point of being an editor if I barely have something to edit. Oh and do other users create imaginary sandbox articles?THXGold2004 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi THXGold2004, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place for fictional episode guides, simply because we're an encyclopedia that covers factual topics. If you want to just write about whatever you want, you may find websites like Wikia and Wattpad to be much better alternatives than Wikipedia. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

THXGold2004, if an analogy helps, you are like somebody who keeps turning up at a golf course with a tennis racquet and ball. People keep telling you that that is not what we do here, we play golf; but you carry on saying "I just want to hit my ball" and getting in the way of people trying to play golf. There's nothing wrong with what you are wanting to do, but it isn't what we do here, and if you carry on doing your different thing here, you will annoy more and more people. --ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi THXGold2004. There are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Wikipedia currently has over 5,000,000 articles and none of them are perfect. Perhaps you should take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. They are always looking for people who are here to edit and will be more than happy to point you to articles which you can help improve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Entry on subject was deleted after user was banned but entry was written and submitted before user was banned

I hired a wikipedia editor to write an entry on a subject, William J. Kelly, because I wanted to make sure the entry was neutral and well-sourced. The entry on this subject has been vandalized previously and Wikipedia took the entry down.

The user submitted the entry to wikipedia and it was approved and lived on wikipedia for at least three to four months if not more.

At some point in January, the entry was taken down completely because the user was banned. We have no relationship with the user other than him being contracted through a freelance service to help write this entry and keep it neutral. I have contacted the freelance service and told them the user's entry was taken down because he was banned. I have been told by them that the entry was written and submitted before he was banned.

Regardless of the user, I don't know why the entry was taken down if the entry was, in fact, properly written.

I would like to know how to get the entry re-instated on my own. If anyone can let me know the steps. I'd appreciate it. I am not familiar with Wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraglaw (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment, the article has been deleted 4 times [1] Theroadislong (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The topic has been discussed previously at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 461#How to restore deleted article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You say that you hired a Wikipedia editor to write an entry on a subject, William J. Kelly, because you wanted to make sure that the entry was neutral and well-sourced. First, however, paid editing of Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. While making sure that an article is well-sourced and neutral is the right objective, paid editors are almost always interested in making the article either blatantly promotional or subtly promotional. Second, if you were so concerned about getting the article accepted that you thought it was necessary to hire a paid editor, you almost certainly have a conflict of interest, and you didn't serve your own interests well. Please declare your own conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I will note that some Wikipedia editors still think that the best way to get an article accepted is to hire a paid Wikipedia editor. Your experience illustrates why the idea that hiring a paid editor is good is in fact a dangerous myth. It appears that the paid editor whom you hired was already banned or blocked, likely for being a paid editor. Your experience should be a lesson to other users who think that the best way to get an article accepted is to hire a paid editor. I will again ask you why it is so important to you to get the article accepted that you will pay someone, when the hiring of paid Wikipedia editors is deprecated (including because they sometimes get blocked or banned). Robert McClenon (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lauraglaw. You seem to be misunderstanding one very important thing about Wikipedia: anyone, including you yourself, who edits (even just once) is a "Wikipedia editor". It sounds like you might've been misled into thinking something else. Participating in Wikipedia is completely voluntary and most of us do it as a hobby. Wikipedia articles are not owned by the subjects they are about or by those who create/edit them. Services who claim they can write a Wikipedia article for you may have some people on staff who have experience editing Wikipedia, but these people do not possess any special editorial control over any of the content they add. Basically, anyone who has Internet access and the inclination can create an article anytime they want. Unfortunately, this means that quite a lot of these articles are not up to Wikipedia's standards and end up being deleted or substantially altered on a daily basis. In addition, any existing Wikipedia article may be nominated for deletion at anytime, so there are no 100% guarantees. If you feel that William J. Kelly is someone who satisfies WP:BIO, then try asking for assistance at Wikipedia:Requested articles. You might be able to find an experienced editor who will be more than happy to write the article and do it for free, simply because they like writing articles. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lauraglaw. I think it might help a bit if I chime in. I'm the administrator who deleted the article after is was recently recreated. I'm sorry if this causes problems, as that was never the intent. The difficulty is that the editor you hired was blocked long before they were hired to create the article. Unfortunately, there are times when blocked and banned editors continue to try and add material to Wikipedia by secretly creating alternative accounts. As a result, articles created this way, by editors who are no longer permitted to edit Wikipedia, are generally removed as soon as we become aware that this has happened. Thus once we became aware that the person you hired was evading the block by creating a new account, we had to delete the article.

Sadly, in many cases people blocked for paid editing continue to offer their services, even though they are aware that they are both violating Wikipedia's Terms of Use and risk having their contributions removed.

It may well be possible to have a new article created, although the previous one was at best borderline in regard to Wikipedia's requirements for sourcing. You could ask at Wikipedia:Requested articles, or perhaps as an editor individually if they would be interested in creating the article. Unfortunately, I would not recommend using paid editors, as while paid editing is permitted on Wikipedia, the conflict of interest it creates means that it is very strongly discouraged and, as Robert McClenon raises, many other problems can arise. - Bilby (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox Articles

Okay, one question. Is It okay for me to create an imaginary episode guide on my sandbox?THXGold2004 (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No it is not, as you were told when you asked this using a different username. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many times you ask this question, THXGold2004, under how many user names: the answer is no, and will continue to be No. Asking the same question repeatedly, and creating new accounts to do so, is appearing more and more like disruptive editing. Please will you either learn what Wikipedia is for, and start editing it appropriately; or if you aren't interested in what Wikipedia actually does, please go and play somewhere else. I have already suggested that you go and create a private wiki in Wikia: if you do that, you can create your fictions to your heart's content. --ColinFine (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that disruption is the aim here, ColinFine. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, Cordless Larry. I prefer to AGF as long as possible. --ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor now blocked - see User:THXGold2004 not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Romeo Mancini

Good morning,

Thank you very much for dedicating your time on my draft about the artist Romeo Mancini. As suggested, I have put the citations were has been indicated "citation needed" and I have to admit that it is much better now. Before submitting again, I would like to know if it is good now. If there is any part that is not ok. Thank you again, Anna Lisa Anna Lisa33 (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. One aspect which it would be good to tidy up before resubmitting would be how you present references which are used more than once. See Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello David, Sorry about that I am using the "visual page" not sure now about the name, but not the one with codes, were I am not even able to add quotes,I tried, please do not make it too complicated for me.... I just want to know if the citations are right and the text as well, I need help, in this way I can't make it, too much for me. Thank you,

Anna Lisa33 (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I must admit the method of re-using references is not at all intuitive. For big cleanup, I tend to just run reFill on the page, as I have just done. Hope that helps! Happy Squirrel (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping me out!

Anna Lisa33 (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Could anyone helping me out with the tone of the article. I have been told it is not encyclopedic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Romeo_Mancini Could anyone have a look into this? For example the first phrase "In the years before the outbreak of the Second World War, Mancini attended the Accademia di Belle Arti di Perugia. There, Mancini studied and met another student who also became an artist, Leoncillo Leonardi." I have been told it is not formal enough, like a story, that is sound not like an article. Could anyone helping me out to have a look at this draft about the artist Romeo Mancini step by step? Since I guessed it was ok. Probably cos I am not English mother tongue. Thank you very much Anna Lisa33 (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

How to remove an outdated notice banner at top of a Wikipedia page?

I recently read an article by an author, and when I looked up his Wikipedia page I noted a banner at the top from 2007 that reads: "This biographical article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this biographical article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (August, 2007"

Since that was posted in 2007, the problem appears to be more than solved since the page now contains lots of secondary and tertiary sources. So what is the process for removing this outdated banner?

Thank you, Edith EdithWP (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Edith. If you feel the template is no longer required, then you may remove it. You can find out more information about these templates at WP:TMC. My suggestion is that you briefly explain why you are removing the template in your edit sum or in a more detailed post on the article's talk page. If you chose the latter, just add a wikilink to the talk page post as your edit sum. For example, "Issue resolved, so template no longer needed. See [[:Talk:Article name#Post name]] for more details." -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Edith. Not that Marchjuly's advice isn't spot on as to what you'd find there, but there's a new help page dedicated to maintenance template removal at Help:Maintenance template removal, and a current request for comment as to whether we should add a link to that help page to templates like the one you saw. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

How to create a page with the same name of a disambiguation page?

I want to create an article on Magadha Empire, but there is an disambiguation page already existing on wikipedia with this name. Shall I edit that page and write my content in that disambiguation page? Flawedaddiction (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Flawedaddiction: overwriting an existing page even a disambiguation page isnt the best way of proceding. I suggest you go down the WP:Articles for creation route and then you can get guidance on for one thing what the best name for the article is. Nthep (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Further on to this, it may very well be that the disambiguation scheme, upon the article being accepted at AfC, will be to move the content and history of of the main title now containing the disambiguation content, to Magadha Empire (disambiguation), then your page to that primary title, and a hatnote added at the top, such as {{Other uses|Magadha Empire (disambiguation)}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Template to Compress Contents?

Hello. I am looking for a template to compress the contents bar of List of Hypericum species. I am currently editing the article, so I'd like to avoid an edit conflict. What I'd like to do is remove the descriptors from the section name in the contents. It currently shows as:

Adenosepalum Spach
Adenotrias (Jaub. & Spach) R. Keller

I want it to look like:

Adenosepalum
Adenotrias

I would like to accomplish this while maintaining the descriptors when you look at the section itself. Is there a template or workaround to do this? Thanks, Fritzmann2002 13:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. For me the contents table already shows as

1 Adenosepalum

2 Adenotrias

and I can't see where your extra text is coming from. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am currently in the process of editing it, I just haven't saved yet. One moment while I do so. Fritzmann2002 13:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Your new changes would not be appropriate section headings. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you advise me on what would be while accomplishing the same task? Fritzmann2002 14:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it is not clear what you are asking, Fritzmann2002. Could you rephrase that question? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. I think I'll just keep it simple, rather than make it too complicated. Thanks for trying to help. Fritzmann2002 12:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Concept of Sandbox

How do I move my article from sandbox and publish it publicly? Flawedaddiction (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Flawedaddiction. Editors may move drafts, etc. into the article namespace as explained in WP:MOVE. However, please understand that we as editors do not own the articles we create or edit. So, once we add something to the article namespace, it becomes fair game for anyone to edit (perhaps even in ways we do not like). It7s also there for anyone to nominate for deletion, which can be a bit of a shock when it happens to something you've worked on for a long time. So, you might be better off submitting your draft, etc. via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. This will give AfC reviewers the chance to look it over and suggest improvements. Drafts submitted via AfC tend to be more in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and, thus, have a better chance of staying in the encyclopedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

To express agreement, unless you are an experienced editor who knows exactly what is needed for an article to be accepted, it would be more prudent to submit your sandbox to Articles for Creation than to move it to article space. In article space, another editor may request that it be deleted. As a submitted draft, if other editors think that it still needs work, it will be declined with comments and you can improve it and resubmit it. So submit it for review rather than moving it to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask one of my colleagues to help me edit my submission?

I am sorry that the required format is more complicated than what I thought it would involve. Can I ask one of my colleagues to help me edit my submission? The question is, how to include a co-author for this article? Thanks.

02:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:142:2:FDDD:BC5F:7555:9CBD:E6DD (talk)

Hello, IP editor. This is the only edit from this IP address. If you give us the name of the article, then maybe we can help you. There are various ways to cite multiple authors. But context matters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I don't think you're asking about citing multiple authors (as Cullen328 assumed), but about developing an article collaboratively. If that is the question, then the answer is a resounding Yes! That is the norm for Wikipedia: nearly all articles are worked on by several people, often by many people. Don't worry about a 'co-author': Wikipedia keeps track of who has edited each article when, and can report this in the history: that is the only kind of "authorship" recognised. If you edit without logging in, it will record the edits as coming from your IP address (which may change, even if you always use the same computer). If you choose to register an account (which is free), and always log into your account, then any edits you make will be recorded as made by your account. (It is up to you how much personal or identifying information about yourself you choose to share on your account's User page: you are not required to share any).

Does that answer your question? --ColinFine (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Error!

NAC:While editors, unlike pages, cannot be deleted, they can be blocked, and this one has been. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Okay, I looked on my sandbox page and it clearly said, It serves as a testing spot and It is not encyclopidia article! So it isn't apart of the encyclopidia articles! So basically I am able to create my fictional episode guide on my sandbox page. But I may be right or wrong!THXGold2004 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

See also section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia Adventure - Stuck in Level 3?

Hello! The training is fab, but I'm getting stuck after I've saved fixing the five typos. It once let me try to do the bolding, but then I have to start over. I've done it three times and it doesn't let me move on. Any idea what I'm doing wrong? Thanks!!! SFElisaW (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

try moving ahead directly through the level4 link. Flawedaddiction (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know much about the Wikipedia Adventure, SFElisaW, but that link that Flawedaddiction provided should be this (it doesn't work as a wikilink). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Who can write a Wiki page that can get approved

Hello all,

I'm wondering if there an experienced Wiki writer here who can help us to have a Wiki page (and approved by Wikipedia) for our company.

I appreciate your feedback.

Cheers, Amir Amirrezaf (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Read the conflict of interest policy and the neutral point of view policy. If you are associated with a company, Wikipedia is not a means of advertising a company. If your company is notable in the peculiar Wikipedia sense of having substantial independent coverage by unrelated media, someone else may write an article about a company. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiaHelp

I decide to move on to Wikia! But the problem is that I can't log in to Wikia because, Well I clicked on start a wikia It first told me to give my wikia a name. Then it told to to log in I put my username and password in and it said, We don't recognize these credentials. Try again or register a new account. So I know that something is wrong. So how can I create my wikia without password, username, and email confirmation errors?Dr.PepperOreos2190 (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.PepperOreos2190: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikia and Wikimedia projects are actually completely separate, even if the underlying software for editing and communicating is similar. So, you'd need to create a new account for editing and contributing to Wikia projects. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: Do I create an account on Wikipedia or on Wikia? I'm just asking so I don't make any errors!Dr.PepperOreos2190 (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.PepperOreos2190: On Wikia, and then you'll be all set. I hope you'll consider editing here sometimes too, though! I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: Okay one more question where is the button wikia where it lets me create my account?Dr.PepperOreos2190 (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.PepperOreos2190: Not sure-- maybe there is a help board over there you could find? I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that you are taking your fictional content elsewhere, Dr.PepperOreos2190/GenoCool2016. We can't help you with Wikia, as it is a completely different site with different rules and policies, but a Google search led me to this help page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

How to write and upload Article on Wikipedia

I wrote an Article on Wikipedia and uploaded. After sometime I got a message that this is advertising and needs speedy deletion. I need help and need to know how to create Wikipedia article and get it approved and uploaded on Wikipedia SyedRQadri (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SyedRQadri. I have removed the curly brackets around your post as they caused Wikipedia's software to attempt to treat it as a template. I'm sorry to hear that your article was deleted, although that is a common outcome when inexperienced editors attempt to write articles. The solution is to read Wikipedia:Your first article and then follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation to create a draft article. That way, you can submit the draft text for review and experienced editors will offer you advice on improving it and making sure it complies with Wikipedia policies before it goes live, rather than nominating it for deletion if there are problems with it. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@SyedRqadri:,hello,only tell me what's the name of your article (deleted article) مم ا کب (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Reasonable to assume that it was Mantra Labs Global. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's deleted because of unreferenced and maybe clueless . مم ا کب (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@مم ا کب: Please read the deletion log. The article was deleted as "(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)". Where did you get the idea of "unreferenced and maybe clueless"? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Well,I thought because my 2 clueless articles were deleted in urdu Wikipedia. مم ا کب (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The rules on each language Wikipedia are different, مم ا کب, and I do not recognise "clueless" as a rationale for deletion here. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@SyedRQadri:,You have to give good sources to your article,and you also have to read Wikipedia:Your first article, but warning!!! do not create this article again now,please wait for 3 or 4 days , then create your article again,otherwise it will be deleted again or tagged for deletation.THANKS.bye. :-). مم ا کب (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If an article has been deleted for being overly promotional, then the solution is to write a neutral article in its place, not to wait three or four days to recreate a promotional article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I mean wait for some time then , write a nautral article in its space.It maybe work more well than creating article suddenly again . OK . مم ا کب (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like someone among you to review my article and let me know whether it is promotional or not.106.51.245.22 (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Then you'll need to tell us which article. It can't be Mantra Labs Global, that has been deleted. Maproom (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest - Editor help needed

Hello,

We've tried to updated a Wikipedia page and had hired a third party editor as we have a conflict of interest. The changes were reverted as the paid contributions weren't properly cited (see talk page), but that's now been revised, We're looking to have an editor help us make the changes to the page. Is there somewhere I can post to have an editor help us?

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

Thank you Samanthajayne77 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You make a strange statement, that you tried to update a Wikipedia page and hired a third party editor because you have a conflict of interest. If that is correct, then the editor whom you hired also has a conflict of interest as a paid editor. Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to request that a volunteer editor with no conflict of interest edit the page neutrally, you are here, which is a good place to make that request, and have made that request. Did you edit that page about two weeks ago without logging on? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

No, we did not make edits two weeks ago. We were working with an editor while following Wikipedia guidelines to help update an out of date page, find more references... There's a draft of what they came up with currently on the talk page that's been reviewed by an editor. It was reverted as their contribution wasn't properly cited but we'd love to have another editor review the document, and make the changes. Samanthajayne77 (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I still don't see the conflict of interest disclosure, either from you or from the other editor who has posted on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

Thank you for all your help this far. Can I ask what I need to do moving forward to get this updated? We used and cited what a past editor had asked for (the conflict of interest bar) but is there something else that should be done? Samanthajayne77 (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Help about Editing

Hi, I'm new user here. I'm seeking help about, how to add imagese, templates, create boxes,etc. I wanna know that, how can I get solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wseef (talk • contribs) 09:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wseef. I suggest that you start by reading Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia and Help:Editing, which cover the basics of editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Photo

How can I put a photo to a person I made on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love.Neymar (talk • contribs) 12:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Love.Neymar. Placing a photograph of a living person can be difficult because of the restrictions of copyright and the sharp limits of the fair use doctrine's exemption to copyright's exclusive grant of right. Basically, you would have to find a photograph that was explicitly marked to be either in the public domain, or under a free copyright license that is compatible with the free copyright licenses granted to most of Wikipedia's content.

That being said, before you even think about looking for a photograph to include, you will need to not violate copyright in any redone article on Ali Hazer (the prior one having been deleted by me as a blatant copyright violation), and any such article will need to demonstrate the notability of the subject through citations to reliable, secondary and independent sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking for help with successfully proposing changes of an article as an editor with a COI

I tried proposing a minor change to an article on it's talk page six weeks ago. Nothing happened so far. Did I do something wrong? Article in question is Flying Lotus. Olejjoerges (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. One possible reason for people not spotting your request is that you had put it at the top of the page. In general new topics on talk pages go at the bottom, so that is where editors will look for new topics. (This Teahouse page is an exception, which causes confusion for new editors.) I have moved the topic to the foot of the talk page, so it may get noticed now. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks! Olejjoerges (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The other problem is that unlike semi-protected edit requests, which tend to be dealt with fairly promptly, there are currently 179 outstanding requests at Category:Requested edits - could I ask any editor with some spare time to help reduce this backlog - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Done - Olejjoerges. Arjayay - I'll take a look at the backlog and see if there's any I can help with. I tend to be very discriminating when dealing with COI editors, however, as it can be very tiring and time consuming dealing with their advocacy. On the other hand, often they have done much of the research, and I simply copyedit for tone. Have added it to my watchlist going forward. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Need some help regarding Copy Editting

Dear Team, I have received this feedback on my article Draft:Purplehed Records -"Copy editing will be better." I read this article in order to understand how to fix this issue http://www.sfep.org.uk/about/faqs/what-is-copy-editing/ but i am afraid I am not that skilled writer yet, who can execute Copy Editing. Kindly guide me with actions I should take to fix this issue. Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Catrat999, and welcome to the Teahouse. The comment left for you that "Copy editing will be better" is not very clear (one might say that it needs copy-editing itself!), but I take it to mean that the draft needs copy-editing. The reason the draft was rejected was that it is not written in a suitably neutral, encyclopedia tone. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to get an idea of what is expected, but I also note that Maproom has done some work on the article since the review. The tone does actually seem relatively appropriate to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Cordless Larry Sir, A warm thank you for all your help, guidance and support. Ya I worked on tone after it was first declined there after I got feedback of "Copy Editing". Thank you Maproom Sir for helping me with Copy editing. I will check with reviewer if it meets the guidelines now. However if I will need further help, can I ask for it on this thread? Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely - please do come back if necessary, Catrat999. I'm sorry it took a while for your first question to be answered. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thats really kind of you Cordless Larry sir, Thank you for the help. Catrat999 (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Cordless Larry Sir, I checked for feedback and it seems that my draft still has a pretty big neutrality/ informalness issue, I have read this page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and I am not sure where I am making mistake on neutrality but another fact is there is lot of scope of correction. Kindly guide me preferably with an example if possible, that will certainly help me a lot to learn about it for future references.
Feedback - User_talk:Onel5969#Thank_you_for_Correcting_me_Sir Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I happened to be browsing through and came across this post. When another editor mentions copy editing, there is actually a copy editing service at the guild of Copy Editors. Just pop over to that link and place a request to that page. Blackmane (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Blackmane Sir for help, but it seems that drafts are not eligible for submissions at the guild of Copy Editors, this tool is available only for developing or improving main articles to achieve FA or A class articles. But this definitely helped me a lot in understanding basics of Copy editing so thanks a ton for this help. Currently I am struggling with Neutrality, any suggestions for my article to improve on that thread ? Draft:Purplehed Records Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

How far does COI spread?

Hello. I noticed that the UK in a Changing Europe page has a notability template. I've found some newspaper articles covering their work, and links to their collaborations with ITV and BBC. I volunteer for a charity which is also contributing to the ITV project. I am not paid, and I have no involvement in that project. No one has asked me to look at that page, I was looking at things related to the ESRC out of my own interest. Would I be ok to edit the page directly (requesting a link to the ITV project on the talk page), or do I need to request someone else makes all the edits? I don't want to break COI guidelines, but I also don't want to be over sensitive about how big my 'circle' might be and create unnecessary work. Whilomish (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Whilomish, the COI guidelines are just that, guidelines, not rules. The point of WP:COI is to stop people adding biased NPOV content to the encyclopedia. If you believe you can write about UK in a Changing Europe without bias, then go ahead. Specifically, as long as the sources you want to add are independent and reliable, there should be no problem with your adding them. Of course the standard warning about your work being liable to change or removal by other editors still applies, but that's independent of any COI issues. Rojomoke (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Whilomish (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The article Ross Hart doesn't seem to work correctly on category pages

He gets listed by his first name instead of surname.

See.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Professional_wrestling_trainers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_actors_from_Calgary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hart_wrestling_family

Why is that?*Treker (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi *Treker. An editor has added {{DEFAULTSORT:Hart, Ross}} to control the sorting in categories. See more at Help:Category#Sort order. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. :) *Treker (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

reinforcing media bias

We know that media is biased. Vice, for example, pretends not to sell its readership to advertisers but we can safely acknowledge that the editorial direction is shaped by the advertising list. It is not that subtle.

What can be more subtle is political bias. In a recent conversation with a Wiki moderator about a bio post I wanted to expose media bias. There was a post that reflected a bit of newsroom nonsense that had been picked up and broadcast by reputable outlets. We know it happens. Newsroom staff are overworked and they do not fact check the way that Bob Woodward did in the 70s.

Well, in the process I learned a little about Wikipedia's house style. I also pondered on the value of Wikipedia when moderation can be done by people who are not subject matter experts. I get it. There is so much out there, how can you have enough moderators to thoroughly understand all topics?

What I want to understand better is how Wikipedia tackles media bias when the facts of a matter are distorted to play to a political agenda? How can we be more impartial and thorough and what does that conversation look like?

114.30.127.8 (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. For the most part, a Wikipedia article ought to summarize what the full range of reliable, secondary sources say about a topic. Within strict limits, we also include non-controversial information from primary and other tertiary sources. So, if some reliable sources say that other sources are are biased, then our article should give due weight to all sides of the controversy. On the specific matter of the "newsroom nonsense" you mentioned, if any reliable sources criticize the "nonsense", then perhaps that can be included in the article. But if it is only you that perceives the "nonsense", or if the dispute is discussed only on blogs and personal, self published sources, then it deserves no mention here. There are countless media outlets where nonsense can be discussed at great length. Wikipedia is not among them. We are an encyclopedia, and do not exist to right great wrongs. Leave that to the activists.

This is also why we do not require subject matter expertise from either active editors or administrators. No expertise is required to accurately summarize published reliable sources, though expertise may well be useful, especially for highly technical topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

How should I format the List of thermal Conductivities?

I have noticed that the article "List of Thermal conductivities" will not print without cutting off the right hand side of it. Can someone tell me what I should do to make it printable?Patriot1423 (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Try this link--Moxy (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much but that link does not change the way that it will print. It cuts off the right side of the notes column just the same way. The article is still unprintable.Patriot1423 (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just printed it, on A4 paper without any changes to my default printer settings, and it's fine. Have you tried changing the settings (such as margin widths) on your PC and/or printer? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much Moxy. Evidently the problem is in my computer or printer settings somewhere. That's a lot better than having it wrong at Wikipedia. Unless if maybe everyone else would also require your fix it link? That would be a problem...

But apart from that I wonder if you could give me any advice on a controversy that just came up yesterday when some engineer said that I have totally wrecked the article and that I should put it back to the way that I found it. I was not aware of the fact that apart from decentralizing the list I had also loused up the way that the article used to sort. That seems to be unfortunate. I couldn't possibly fix it unless I pulled out all the thorns and then the very simplified list (like the way that I found it) would lend itself to very big misunderstandings since the thermal conductivities actually get around a lot over some wide temperature intervals. After thinking it over it seems to me that probably the best solution to this conflict would be to rename the original article, somehow, like "Parochial List of Thermal Conductivities," for example, and also create a whole new article for the critical program which might as well be called a "Universal List of Thermal Conductivities," for example, or something like that.

I don't know what the rules are for this sort of revision, nor whether it is even possible to rename an article that someone else has founded, nor the opinions of anyone else, nor where to talk about this question, or whether this teahouse place is the right forum for it? In any case the complaint was first posted on my user page and I copied it over to the talk page of the article in dispute.Patriot1423 (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)