Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 700

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 695

←

Archive 698

→

Archive URL contains only the title of the cited article

I was checking some edits made by the InternetArchiveBot for the Robin Williams article. For one of them, in the Further reading section, Archive.org (WayBackMachine) had captured the correct web page from ABC-Nightline, but for some reason only the title for the article appears on the archived URL page. I am thinking that I should leave it as is, but I wanted to check with the experts to make sure that is the best thing to do. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Markworthen and welcome (back, I think) to the Teahouse.

Sometimes the efforts by the Wayback Machine to archive a page are defeated by things the original site does. That looks like it may be the case here. The archive robot saved something, but not being an AI, it was unable to realize that what it saved was not going to be particularly helpful for the future.

So what's the right thing to do here? If it were an actual reference cited in the article, you would leave it, perhaps adding a {{failed verification}} template to warn readers that there's no longer useful content to be found by following the link. The useless cite would remain until someone comes along to rewrite that section using still extant sources. We'd be assuming the original cite did verify the information, but until there's reason to challenge the validity or a corroborating source can be found, the former link is left as a placeholder.

But in this case, the link is just in the Further reading section. As the link is no longer useful, it would be perfectly justifiable to remove it. Nothing in the content of the article depends on it and we are not doing readers any favors by pointing them to documents that either don't exist any longer or have been replaced by something useless.

I did some checking to see if perhaps there was an earlier capture or if there was some link elsewhere to the same content. I don't know if this is actually the same segment, but there's an ABC.go segment which has a video transcript available, even if you're not a subscriber. That transcript might be a useful thing to capture, even if there doesn't seem to be a way to generate a URL to point to it. (Isn't is such a pity that websites are designed for their purposes, not for ours.) — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Under international rights agreements, the original page could only be viewed by people within the United States anyway, so no much use to everyone else. It would be interesting to know if that was the reason why the archived capture only shows the title. CV9933 (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! (Yes, I am a return questioner ;o) I removed the link as you (jmcgnh) suggested. There is still a link to another ABC special so I think we're good. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

First question!

This user has been blocked indefinitely. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What is 2,952÷36? Kubuś z Gimnazjum (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kubuś z Gimnazjum: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask about using Wikipedia, and is not for general questions. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Cześć, @Kubuś z Gimnazjum:. IMHO it's osiemdziesiąt kilka, but this is not a chat room for discussing trivial arithmetics. Please see the note at the top of the page.
It says this is

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

(emphasis mine). Shall you have any questions regarding Wikipedia editing, rules or policies, you're more than welcome to ask them here. --CiaPan (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec) In addition to what 311dot said, use of a calculator to solve that ~~equation~~ expression would be easier and less time consuming than posting here (or just googling it). If you have any Wikipedia related questions, we would be more than happy to help you with those. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Please note the given expression is not an 'equation', as there is no 'equals sign' in it. Consequently, there is nothing to 'solve' in it, also because as a not-equation it contains no unknown. It's a simple arithmetic expression, which needs just calculation to determine its value. --CiaPan (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@CiaPan: Struck out and corrected. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for approved article creation

Hello, sir. Iam love to created an article and editing article please allow me for creating articles. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolphin (Dolphin) (talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dolphin (Dolphin), and welcome to the Teahouse. Any editor can create an article; but very new editors cannot do so directly, but have to use the article wizard and create a draft. This is because creating an article that is acceptable is difficult, and it is very unlikely that a new editor will be able to do so at the first attempt. I would actually advise almost any editor to use wizard (or equivalent) and create a draft rather than going straight to creating the article. Dolphin, I suggest you study your first article, and follow the advice there - in particular, about editing existing articles for a while before you try creating a new one. --ColinFine (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the warm welcome! willkimon Duet1234 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on email reply from Ambarish Banerjee re Hillier Parker May & Rowden

Dear WP,

I am posting this here on behalf of my friend Harold Couch. He has written in by email to enquire why our article about HPM&R was rejected. Here is the reply received.

Dear Harold Couch,

Your submission is way too too too detailed. I'm stating this with zero exaggeration.

And, that along with the scarce non-trivial mentions in reliable sources looks to have been the main contributing factor behind the decline. WP is an encyclopedia, not a company-booklet that tends to sing unchecked praises and glorify it's past. Thus, each and every contribution/construction and/or project-locations do not deserve to be mentioned.

Also, the People section is too trivial to be encyclopedic.And, the History section looks more-or-less good! So, please drastically cut-out the trivial promotional stuff. Once, you've done so, re-submit and our team will re-review.

Thank you!

Yours sincerely, Ambarish Banerjee

Of course we will be happy with a much shorter version, rather than nothing at all.

But we think what is so wrong with precise information linked to a published source offered in good faith is hard to see.

For example, to my mind the fact that HPM&R was "gave advice to the then Nuclear Electric Plc in the early 1990s to facilitate the change of use of Bankside Power Station to the Tate Modern art gallery" is really quite striking and illustrates how HPM&R has played a part in the building of the United Kingdom as it stands today.

WP's own article about itself contains 368 references and WP has only been around since 2001. The HPM&R article we submitted only 53 references and HPM&R has been around since 1896.

So WP gives itself 21 references about itself per year of operation. At that rate, you might think that HPM&R ought to be entitled to 2142 references in its article.

WP's article about itself includes arcane technical details such as whether it uses MySQL or Lucene for searching. Yet Banerjee implies that the fact that 99 Bishopsgate was managed on behalf of Hammerson is less interesting than that; but if you happened to have been involved somehow with 99 Bishopsgate or Hammerson at the time then it's quite possibly very interesting indeed.

Philjones573 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for the benefit of anyone who hasn't checked the archives, some previous Teahouse questions and answers about this topic:

Cordless Larry (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to accept that not every company gets a page on Wikipedia. It has gone through a deletion process and was voted to be deleted. Comparing it to other articles isn't a way to get your article published. You started another draft which is great, but also as mention before, it doesn't matter how many references they need to be significant coverage (not just mere mentions). So instead of asking here constantly why it isn't getting accepted, focus on improving your draft instead to see if you can overturn the lack of notability. NZFC^(talk) 21:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Taking a look at the article it does appear that there is some notable information there, for example

"It was commissioned to value the properties of John Lewis (department store);[12] Brooklands motor track; [13] and London Air Park. [14] It advertised the freehold site of Devonshire House, Picadilly, in 1922 [15]. It auctioned Gamages Department Store of Oxford Street in 1931. [16]" and "The purchase of Burlington Arcade by Prudential Assurance Company in 1954 was negotiated through HPM&R.[18] The Barton Arcade in Manchester was sold by HPM&R in 1957. [19]

"From 1960, HPM&R gave advice to over 100 local authorities and New Town Corporations on development schemes for town centre shopping. ::"For example, in 1974, HPM&R was appointed planning consultant, project manager and letting agent on behalf of Banbury Borough Council for the Castle Centre in Banbury Town Centre (now named Castle Quay Shopping Centre).[20] [21] Tunbridge Wells Borough Council was advised throughout the development of Royal Victoria Place, opened in 1992. [22][23] HPM&R advised the 1970 development of the town centre for Hartlepool, County Durham"

This makes the company seem pretty notable to me and not a run-of-the-mill estate firm. Working with other notable firms and with over 100 local authorities, seems to be an indicator or notability to me, would any disagree with that?Egaoblai (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

A company might well be worthy of note in the sense you use notable, but if it has not been written about extensively in independent WP:Reliable sources, then it is not notable in the Wikipedia sense. Wikipedia simply looks to see whether a subject has been written about. It doesn't make any judgements about notability in the everyday sense. Dbfirs 08:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, but many discussions come down to what is notable, a subject may have lots written about but it might not be notable and vice versa.

The questions in this discussion is "Is this organisation notable? and "What makes an estate company notable" and it appears they might be given their role in working with local authorities on such a large scale. If we accept If this information can be proved by independent written sources then it follows that the topic would be acceptable. Does notability always come from being the subject of an article? I mean to give an absurd example. Let's say there was a organization that had been employed by the royal family of the UK for 400 years and this was verified references, but none of the references were articles that were specifically about the organisation, but mere "passing mentions" or official records, would that organisation fail an AFD? Egaoblai (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Egaoblai: In your fictitious case of a very old organization serving prestigious customers but that has attracted no significant coverage, yes, it would indeed fail an AfD. The trick is that in Wikipedia's meaning of the term, "notable" does not mean peculiar or worthy of interest, but has been the subject of published interest, because while the former is quite subjective and disputable, the latter is not (or much less so). If something has appeared on the front page of the New York Times, the Economist, El Pais and La Repubblica with extensive analysis in the inner pages, it is notable, even if it is a random person going about their average day in an average city. Presumably, if a subject has been deemed worthy of interest by reliable independent sources, some of our readers may deem it worthy of interest as well, but otherwise, it is only speculation. An reverse example is the discussion about whether an independent article about Donald Trump's hair should be kept, where many experienced editors argued to keep the article on the grounds that the guidelines require it, and some other experienced editors argued to delete it with an argument of "screw the guideline in this particular instance, that is stupid and does not belong here" (thus admitting the notability threshold was met). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"Paid editing" tag on the article's page

Hi,

An article I wrote has recently been accepted to Wikipedia. Today, I have noticed that there is now a rather big banner on top of the article page with a dollar sign and the following text "This article has been edited in return for disclosed payments. View disclosure."

I am a COI editor and I have disclosed this on the draft talk page before the article was written.

My question is, is this banner obligatory or necessary? I couldn't find any information on that, nor do I understand why this tag was added later and not at the time when the article was moved from Articles for creation. I understand that my COI has to be disclosed on the talk page, but I find the banner disruptive and would like to have it removed, if at all possible.

Many thanks for your replies.

NindriIndri (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I see that Template:Disclosed paid is a new template, less than a week old, and that there is discussion about it at Template talk:Disclosed paid. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'll try arguing my case there.

NindriIndri (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

NindriIndri, you are not a COI editor, you are a PAID editor. There's a difference. You are being compensated by the subject of the article to create the article. Don't you understand that the vast majority of articles are NOT created that way? Please explain to us what is disruptive about informing our readers that the article you were paid to write was created by someone for pay? When assessing a source of information, it is vital to know how the information was gathered. For example, would you trust the voracity of a study on the effects of smoking on the human body that was commissioned by a tobacco company? Why should the article you wrote be different? In my eye, by accepting payment from the subject of the article to create it, you have forever called into doubt the content of the article and IMO that tag should remain until neutral editors have rewritten every word that you wrote. The discussion David Biddulph references above is a discussion of the meta issues behind the existence of the tag. It is not the place to discuss the placement of the tag on the particular article you got paid to write. John from Idegon (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, if you do decide to contribute to the discussion David mentioned, it's required that you disclose your status as a paid editor there. Also you are required by paid to list on your user page or your user talk page every article you've accepted compensation to write and who paid you. You have not done that. John from Idegon (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Per what David Biddulph said, the template in question is very new. I created it less than a week ago, and in the meantime have been preparing an official proposal at the village pump. I have added the tag to a number of articles to show its veracity, and have removed it if contested by any editor, including those who have edited articles for pay.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

John from IdegonThank you for your comment. I did not know that I had to disclose the information regarding paid articles on my talk page, I thought it should be disclosed on the article's talk page (and no one has brought this up so far). I will do so immediately, I just have to figure out how.

Regarding the topic: to go back to your example, I presume such a tobacco company study or it's results would not have been accepted to Wikipedia. My article has been properly tagged as paid, reviewed and then accepted; thus I believe my article has met WP standards for inclusion: neutral tone, notability, references etc., the same as any other article ever accepted on WP (paid or not) and I don't see a reason why the reader should then be blasted with a huge dollar sign that makes it look like an advertisement and may make them not trust the article (the info is available on the talk page, after all, for those curious about the author or circumstances).

I understand that there may have been many cases of abuse of WP and that long-time editors may see red when they see a paid editor, but I (or the client) had no intentions of bypassing any rules or doing anything prohibited or sketchy. I have tried to the best of my abilities to abide by the WP rules and outside of my connection to the client (painter), I am an art historian and so I know the topic I wrote about and as a scholar, I understand the need for objectivity. Wouldn't it be a huge waste of time to rewrite an article that has already been accepted and meets the standards? Just out of spite or paranoia? Contrary to your opinion, I see nothing wrong with people being paid to write articles for WP (actually, I think it would be nice if everyone was paid), as long as this is disclosed and the information is accurate and reviewed. I'm sure there are hundreds of articles on WP written by paid contributors who chose to hide their connection to the client and I don't think it's particularly helpful to use such a negatively-charged tone when communicating with the few of us that did and treat us like lepers.

Please understand that from the perspective of a new editor, Wikipedia is a huge place and not the easiest to navigate or write an article for, not to mention the numerous rules and opinions of different editors that one meets along the way. This is precisely the reason why I have not contributed more - since I've joined WP, I feel like everyone's "out to get me".

Additionally, as far as I can see, this template has not been generally accepted and I don't know why the article I wrote should be tagged when other articles are not (yet).

I have disclosed my status of paid editor on the template talk page and I do not argue the appropriateness of this template for my article only but in general. I can also remove that if you feel it's out of place. I would like to stress again that I am not trying to obfuscate anything and I don't have any hidden agendas. I just really don't see any need to differentiate in such an obvious manner articles which, in terms of general guidelines, have all been accepted as worthy of inclusion in WP - and I mean all of them, not just in my case.

Kind regards,

NindriIndri (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I have re-read the rules for disclosing PAID and as far as I can see, I have obliged:

Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries.

NindriIndri (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Why would you not disclose it on your user page? What possible reason can there be not to do that, when you are a paid editor? I am trying to understand here. --bonadea contributions talk 20:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

COIDISCLOSEPAY is clear than it is not required. I would support forcing notices to go both on the userpage and on either each edit summary or the talk page of every PAID-edited article; but that is not the current state of things, so I do not think they need to answer your question by anything else than "because I do not want to". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The paid editor is (obviously) under no obligation to disclose on the article page. But it does not mean that such disclosure is prohibited. It was added, some find it useful, some believe it is required by European law, and some think it is unnecessary. A consensus is yet to be formed on this matter. Rentier (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I have disclosed it since I have been notified of this recommendation. I have previously not done so because I presumed from the wording that it was necessary to disclose my status on the article talk page and it was optional to add it to my own. I didn't try to hide anything, I just focused on the article and not the unnecessary "bureaucracy". I find the way Wikipedia works (with all the codes and templates etc.) quite overwhelming so I try to fiddle as little as possible with it. The way John from Idegon phrased his reply made it seem like disclosing all articles on the user page is a hard rule I had intentionally disobeyed and was therefore a "bad" paid editor, when in fact it is a recommendation ("advise" is the verb used) and the way I marked the article has not raised any concerns with previous Wiki editors.

Kindly,

NindriIndri (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Announcement: "Save changes" has been renamed "Publish changes"

Image of "Publish changes" button (formerly "Save changes") as seen in Visual Editor. This button appears at the top right of the editing screen.

A small name change has just been made to the blue "Save changes" button in everyone's editing tool. It is now labelled "Publish changes", but its function has not altered. As before, it simply saves the recent edits that have been typed in, whether they've been made in the main encyclopaedia, in a user page or to a draft article. It does not make any difference to how Draft articles, or content in user sandboxes, are actually published (i.e. made to go live) on Wikipedia proper. See Wikipedia:Your first article

New editors need to be aware that our various help pages, (here, here and here) for example, may remain a little out of date for a while until new graphics and explanatory text are provided. This also affects users learning about editing by taking The Wikipedia Adventure. Hopefully, this won't cause too much confusion.

(I learnt of this scheduled wikipedia-wide change as a result of a post from David Biddulph and others, pointing us to this and this announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation.) Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Disney Fox merger

To prepare for the inevitable Disney-Fox deal, should we start putting parentheses for the deal impending, should we put a fate tab abouve the founding tab for the fox properties, should we put a defunct tab? what should we do?Vinnylospo (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Vinnylospo. I'm not sure what you're asking in respect of Wikipedia. If the deal has been reported in reliable sources, then information about it may be added to the articles affected. Once a deal has gone through and been reported in reliable sources, then articles about subjects affected by the deal should be updated (whether it's names, logos, ownership etc). In some cases, articles may need to be revised, as some existing information may become historical (which doesn't necessarily mean that it should be removed). Every article needs to be considered individually: if you're interested in helping with that task, that would be useful. I haven't a clue what you mean by "put a fate tab abouve the founding tab for the fox properties, should we put a defunct tab". --ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

QARABAĞ FK

Qarabağ FK Azərbaycanı^[1]n ən yaxşı komandasıdır.Ən güclu komandadır.Qarabağ 2017-ci ildə UEFA-ya çıxır. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.219.190.127 (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2017‎ (UTC)

References

^ {{cite book}}

This is the English Wikipedia, and questions here should be asked in English. A list of other language Wikipedias is available. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You may be looking for az:? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia fund requests

Hi - when W started asking for funds some years ago in order to maintain its independence I set up a DD for the sum requested. Almost every time I open a wikipedia page I get asked for a contribution. I appreciate this is necessary but is there anyway to link my ip address, or something like that, to the fact I contribute every month?2A00:23C5:5505:C00:BDC8:635F:7C4D:EE27 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions! I don't think there's a way to opt-out using just your IP address, but if you create an account there is a preference to turn off the fundraising ads whilst you are logged in. – Joe (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is no means to prevent your IP from getting the notices(which are done by the Foundation and not Wikipedia itself). The only way to stop them is to register a username. 331dot (talk)•

"How can I address the issue of one who persistently erases appropriate material we have submitted?"

We post pertinent material on your "Rapture" article page BUT someone keeps erasing our submissions (2). Do you have any counsel as to how we can retain our appropriate posts?99.197.186.77 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears from the note on your talk page that another editor is trying to work with you on this. You should continue the discussion there or on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Who reviews submitted drafts?

I recently submitted a new page for review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gilson_(company)

Who edits these drafts? Is there a select group of editors with permission to accept new page submissions, or can anyone do it?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cglife.bmarcus (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cglife.bmarcus: I think that any registered editor may review the drafts by following the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions RudolfRed (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not correct, RudolfRed. See my response below and WP:WPAFC/P. – Joe (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cglife.bmarcus. Because a central tenet of Wikipedia is that no rule should stand in the way of improving the encyclopaedia, anybody with the technical ability to move a page can "accept" a draft by moving it from the "Draft:" namespace to the main article namespace. However, there is a consensus amongst the Wikipedia community that only experienced editors who have demonstrated a familiarity with our policies and guidelines should be reviewing drafts on a regular basis. The formal minimum criteria can be found at WP:WPAFC/P. Editors who are not approved reviewers that accept a draft will often find that the draft is either moved back to draftspace, or nominated for deletion.

If you are asking about yourself, there are some additional restrictions because you have been paid for your contributions to Wikipedia. In order to comply with the paid editing policy and conflict of interest policy you must not accept any of your own drafts, or any other drafts on a connected topic. Many editors also feel that paid editors cannot be trusted to review any drafts at all, and you would likely meet strong scrutiny and resistance if you tried to do so. – Joe (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiFauna question

Can I be more than one type of WikiFauna? (e.g. WikiCat/WikiEagle/WikiKnight)? German Gamer 77 18:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello GermanGamer77 and welcome (back, I think) to the Teahouse.

Since WikiFauna are often only loosely described, you may find several descriptions that seem to aptly apply to yourself. You could be a WikiFauna hybrid or chimera and it won't affect what you can do as an editor. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Undoing user warnings

If I post on a user talk page a warning template at the same time as a bot (for example, Cluebot NG) posts one, is it considered good practice to remove or undo the one I added? Radioactivated (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Radioactivated: If it's for the same incidence of vandalism, then yes. It's not really fair to warn a user twice for the same mistake. – Joe (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Parenthetical referencing editnotice at Allele age

I added the parenthetical referencing editnotice template to Allele age but it is appearing when I read the article. I was expecting it only to appear when editing the article. Where did I go wrong? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Curb Safe Charmer. A Wikipedia:Editnotice for Allele age would belong in Template:Editnotices/Page/Allele age. Then it's automatically displayed above the edit area when editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: Editnotices can only be placed or modified by admins. I'd do it for you, but I don't think it's appropriate in this case. We retain Harvard referencing when it's firmly established in an article, but allele age is a brand new article by a new user and should probably be shifted over to the standard footnote referencing. – Joe (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

linguistic technical question

The article Minimalist_program confusingly uses two similar abbreviations, vP and VP, for apparently different things, verb phrase and verb phase. And what does the unexplained abbreviation CP in the article Minimalist_program refer to? It says "see X-bar theory", but that doesn't even mention CP. According to CP and complementizer, CP means complementizer phrase, but the section Minimalist_program#Phases confusingly talks only about phases.

And how do i turn off the visual editor? I thought i'd done that in the preferences, but it doesn't seem to affect the "Ask a question" button here. I thought i'd asked that somewhere, but i can't find my question. Clicking on words at the beginning of lines in this textbox makes the textbox disappear on Firefox on my laptop and on Chrome on my Galaxy Tab S2! --Espoo (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Espoo. Your comment on minimalist program is best directed to the talk page of that article (Talk:Minimalist program). That is where editors discuss improvements to specific articles. Or if you can fix the problem yourself, please do so.

The "ask a question" function of the Teahouse doesn't use the Visual Editor, it's a custom interface for the Teahouse. However, you don't have to use it. You can simply edit this page like any other on Wikipedia, and ask a question by clicking "add section" in the tab bar at the top of this page. – Joe (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Please get the UI fixed. It will upset many new users so much to see their unfinished message disappear that they may not try to click on the button again, which makes the unfinished message reappear. According to the principle of least surprise, there should be a start-a-new-section button hidden behind the plus sign like on all talk pages (which is a very bad UI solution but familiar to regular editors), and the "ask a question" button should produce the same result. --Espoo (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Ref https://en.wikipedia.org/…/King's_College,_Auckland

This concerns the Alumni section.My father attended King's College. As a commander of a RAF bomber squadron in the last war,he was awarded a DSO and 2 DFC's and I wager deserves an inclusion in this Alumni section of King's. An obituary was written in The Daily Telegraph,so most of the relevant information on his career is cited in this obituary.His full name is Wing Commander Douglas Rivers Bagnall. Can you guide me please how to incorporate this information into the King's Alumni. 217.43.201.162 (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I assume this is about Category:People educated at King's College, Auckland. That is a list of all people with Wikipedia articles about them who were educated at the college. I can't find a Wikipedia article about Douglas Rivers Bagnall. While there's no such article, he can't be added to the category: that's not a matter of policy, it's a consequence of how categories work, an article is added to a category by a tag at the end of the article, so if there's no article there's nowhere to put the tag. Maproom (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I have made a start on an article about your father Douglas Rivers Bagnall if you wish to make any suggestions on the article's talk page you are welcome, but as you have a conflict of interest it is best not to edit the article directly. Theroadislong (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent Edit of My Neighbor Totoro page

Hello, I recently added an edit to the page for the film My Neighbor Totoro and this was my first contribution to Wikipedia. I did this for a class project but i really tried to add something that I thought might stay up so I'm just wondering why it was taken down? I would really like to know what about it was unsuitable- if it was simply not the right page to add the info to or if there was something within the edit itself that made it unsuitable. I would love to discuss what I can do in future to contribute meaningful information to Wikipedia. Thank you, H.Frances H.F.M. (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi H.F.M., your edit was reverted here because WP:FRINGE, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:RS. Please read those pages to better understand the content the article is looking for. NZFC^(talk) 01:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, H.Frances. You added a fringe theory advanced by certain fans to the article My Neighbor Totoro. In my opinion, this material does not belong in the article, because it gives undue weight to a crank theory lacking evidence. The other editor also thought that your addition was inappropriate, and reverted you. That editor explained their reasoning quite clearly in their edit summary. If you still believe that this content belongs in the article, then the proper place to make your case is Talk: My Neighbor Totoro. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

How to write an article about a fashion designer?

I want to write an article about a fashion designer. The name of the article is Lili Miro.

I followed the below mentioned page as reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manish_Malhotra

I started writing as... Lili Miro, Founder & CEO of the premium luxury personal shopping and luxury request management brand Lili Miro, is one of the most respected fashion advisors in the Middle East and a celebrated personal buyer for rich and famous.

It is similar to Manish Malhotra is an Indian fashion designer[2][3] who often works with Hindi cinema actresses. He launched his label in 2005.

However, my article is tagged for speedy deletion...

Please adviceLilimiro (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lilimiro: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I believe you confused your username with that of an article title, and then created the page on your userpage which is meant to discuss your personal Wikipedia editing. This made it seem like you were promoting yourself, which is not permitted. You should also change your username so it is not that of the person you are writing about. I will place a link on your talk page to do that.

Also, the language you use above is very promotional as well. Encyclopedia articles should not have embellishments like "celebrated" in them. Note that each article is judged on it's own merits; other similar articles existing doesn't mean yours can be permitted too. See WP:OSE for more information. You should read Your First Article before doing anything else. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: Thanks for the clarification and guidance.Lilimiro (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

who is sitaphul?

is a national newspaper a good reference? sectionSophiekkk (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiekkk (talk • contribs) 09:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sophiekkk -welcome to Wikipedia and welcome to the Teahouse, where we aim to help people with problems whilst editing Wikipedia. Most national newspapers (except opinion pieces and letters within it) would normally be regarded as what we call a "reliable source" (See WP:RS, and especially this section within that page). But there is a caveat: Some national papers have been known to make up false stories (so-called fake news), usually to meet political ends. Other national newspapers aren't really newspapers at all. So the (true) fact that my photograph once appeared on the front cover of the Sunday Sport with a story about my activities as an alien buying works of art from earth-based museums inside it wouldn't be regarded as reliable, even though it was genuinely in print in a nationally-circulated paper. As for the title of your question, I don't recognise the word sitaphul, so am unable to answer that. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sophiekkk, you seem to be asking about the user who posted the question here. He or she is another Wikipedia editor, just like you or me. Some editors post a little information about themselves on their user page, but not everybody does that. --bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Where can I find a list of WP Improvement projects (specifcally UI design)

I'm back to the Teahouse because I have not yet found a good answer to this question on either Wikimedia or Wikipedia. Maybe it's too soon.

'Knowledge as a service' is an explicit strategy in the Wikimedia Stragegic Direction 2017-2030. Implicitly, this strategy covers how content from Wikiprojects is accessed by - and is presented to - readers. I understand that any long-term improvement program is complex and takes time. I would expect some kind of 'Road Map' but this may well be something for 2018.

I think that the way in which WP content is currently presented to readers could be improved. But I've been unable to find any WP or WM projects that address this in 2017-2018. The WP projects page seems to be exclusively focused on content and languages. UI is not a priority in the WM plans. It seems that there is no 'talk page' (either on WM or WP) where I can add suggestions on 'Presentation of content to readers'.

Any ideas? Thanks for any help,

Mike [Categorie: finding my way around] Mikemorrell49 (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Mikemorrell49. Have you looked at WP:VPP? It's about proposals rather than WMF's decisions, but it's probably the closest there is to what you're looking for. --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, [User:ColinFine|Colin], I hadn't thought of the VP but it's definately the place for proposals about WP that are not already covered by projects.Mikemorrell49 (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea Mikemorrell49. I'll put my thinking cap on and see if I can find info related to your query, but in the meantime I wanted to give you a cyber thumbs up. ;0) - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the 'thumbs up', Mark! Mikemorrell49 (talk)

Thanks to ColinFine's tip, I've found what I was looking for at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. The page has a list of projects by category and a special search box to find projects using keywords. Mikemorrell49 (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

interested

How is everyone Darragh99 (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Good thanks, Darragh99, apart from the fact that I just managed to accidentally revert your comment here - apologies for that (I've now restored it)! Welcome to the Teahouse. Please don't hesitate to ask here if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

citation that requires registration

I am considering updating an article with a citation to the World Health Organization's beta draft of ICD-11, which is online.

The difficulty is that if I simply give a normal citation, many relevant details will be missing, and I can pre-anticipate the howling.

Alternatively, I can give a citation that provides more details, but to see anything (e.g. to follow the online link that is part of the citation), one must register with the ICD-11 and then log in. Anyone can register, but I can pre-anticipate the howling.

Arriving belatedly at my question, is there someway in the reference template to give people a heads up that if they want more information and details, they should register?

Or perhaps such a citation is ill-considered and fraught with unresolvable peril?

Hotornotquestionmarknot (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Template:cite web explains that you can use |url-access=registration. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hotornotquestionmarknot. Some of the best sources, such as scholarly journal articles, require not just registration but payment or a subscription to access, but are still preferred over free-to-access but lower-quality sources (see WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:SOURCEACCESS), so I wouldn't worry about readers needing to register on an external site to access a source. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Help regarding patrol

I joined random page patrol and typo patrol. After that, I edited many random articles and typos, but in my edit counter page, it is showing that I have zero patrols. How will the stat of patrol be changed. Help me regarding this as I am not much experienced-- Souravdas1998 (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Souravdas1998 and welcome to the Teahouse. Firstly, thank you for helping out with tasks like spotting typos and checking formatting on random pages, etc. It's a valuable, but endlass task! There are various types of Wikipedia patrols, as you can see from this list: WP:PATROLS. The two you have offered to help (random page patrol and typo patrol) can be done by any user, almost from day 1 of starting to edit Wikipedia. In fact, helping out with this is a really great way to learn and to see a wide range of article styles and qualities. All your edits and contributions are listed on this page: Special:Contributions/Souravdas1998, including any edits you made when randomly visiting pages to help improve them. I'm afraid they aren't listed in a special place as far as I'm aware, unlike those that require editors to have prior approval and (usually) a check that they have sufficient experience and knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For example, New Page Patrol - where it is possible to see what they've done in that task. I hope this explains things ok?

Do remember that every single one of us here began by knowing absolutely nothing about editing Wikipedia at first. We're no different from you. And, like you, we came to help out because we use the encyclopedia and we care about making it better. We all took it one step at a time - and it looks like you're interested enough to really grow into a great contributor here. I'm sure we'll be seeing you around. Enjoy the learning experience! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Indenting templates on user page

Hello! I want to edit my user page so other Wikipedians can know what my goals are on the site. But I have a small problem. I cannot figure out how to indent the infobox templates on my user page and I would apreciate some help. By indenting I mean anchoring the boxes to the right of the screen and not having them being scattered around the page. Duck1738 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I formatted your userboxes as you've requested into a table that floats on the right margin. I simply followed the example shown at the top of WP:Userboxes. There are many ways to organize your userboxes, so feel free to experiment.

Oh, and welcome, Duck1738, to the Teahouse. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

adding an organisation to wiki

hello there. Indian dental association is an article that is already there in wiki. but when i try to add it to another list of associations it says its not possible due to various reasons. its a stanad alone articleNammu4725 (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nammu4725: The name you added was INDIAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, but the name of the article is Indian Dental Association. If you are going to link to an article, the spelling and capitalization must match. RudolfRed (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Internal link not working!

When I try to link to another page, like Page the link will be red. Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolSkittle (talk • contribs) 08:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A link to an article that exists, like book, will work and be blue. A link to an article that does not exist, like zarg, will not work and will be red. Maproom (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, CoolSkittle, welcome to the Teahouse. Adding to Maproom's advice, I suspect your query relates to this message you left on the Talk page of another user. First, there was nothing wrong with the link you gave the user, mentioning a different user called Armascout. That link is red simply because they've not yet created themselves a user page (not everybody does) so it's red, like Maproom said. However, your link to Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: The Getaway was red because you typed it by hand, and did not use the correct lower and upper cases in the title. (Page titles are case sensitive). Once again, it's red because that page with that use of capitalisation doesn't exist. But Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Getaway, does. The best way to ensure a correct link is to copy/paste the text from the title of the page itself. Hoping this makes sense. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I want to add a picture

I would like to add a picture of a postcard of Union College in Lincoln Nebraska to Wikipedia. It would reside on the following page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_College_(Nebraska)

2605:6000:3E1A:4900:78FA:CAE9:3A6F:2AF5 (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello..are you there?

2605:6000:3E1A:4900:78FA:CAE9:3A6F:2AF5 (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello anonymous IP user. Welcome to the Teahouse. Please be patient. We are all volunteers here and are not paid to sit here waiting for questions to pour in. And if you expect a detailed reply it usually takes a lot more than eleven minutes to sort that out for you! Luckily I have one I prepared earlier, which I hope will meet your needs.

I am assuming you have already found the postcard image you want to use on Wikimedia Commons? It could be like this one of a cup of tea that you want to use, rather than are asking how to upload your own photo from scratch. If so, click on the link in the previous sentence, or click the photograph you see here - you're taken to the same place - and look just above the picture, and beneath the filename where you'll see a line of five small links. Look for the link with the tiny Wikipedia 'W' logo and the words "Use this file". Click that link and select the text offered to "Use this file on a Wiki as a Thumbnail". (The convention is always to add an image as a thumbnail, no matter how much you'd love to make it larger.) Copy the link to your clipboard and then go to the Wikipedia page you want to add it to (let's assume we want to add it to the page we're on now). Edit the page (ie click the tab labelled Edit Source). Scroll down to the section you'd like to add it to, and paste in the text you copied at the very top of that section. By default, this adds the thumbnail picture and its caption on the right hand side of the page, as you see here. To change the caption text, just edit the text to the right of the vertical bar - or 'pipe'. Don't change the filename.jpg text itself or the image link will be broken. There are some useful links on this help page: Wikipedia:Images with further guidance and tweaks, or detailed layout possibilities at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.

Of course, if you use the Visual Editor (which is a bit more WYSIWYG), the process is slightly different. You once again navigate to the section where the image is needed, then, in the editing toolbar, click Insert > Media. At the search bar in the popup that then appears, type the keyword to search for certain image types, or just type in the filename of your image you've already chosen from Wikimedia Commons. Select the image and then click 'Use this image'. Before inserting it you'll be prompted to add a caption. Captions can include hyperlinks, but that's probably best left for another time. I hope this helps.

If you need advice on actually uploading your own image first, that requires a slightly different answer and a mention of copyright issues. Let us know if you need further help on that. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I am really lost here, this is my first time trying this. Everything updates OK I think, but no response. Just like talking to a brick wall. Can you help me please?

2605:6000:3E1A:4900:78FA:CAE9:3A6F:2AF5 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the detailed help above, or did the postings cross? Does the postcard you want to upload have copyright restrictions? If so, then it is unlikely that you will be able to claim fair use. We need more detail to give any further advice. The usual process is to upload copyright-free images to Wikipedia:Commons, and link the image from there, as explained above. Dbfirs 19:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP user doesn't appear to have made any other edits except to this page, so perhaps inserting an image may be a little ambitious to start with. However, assuming good faith, I have left a copy of the reply above on their Talk Page. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

How to delete my account....

Back in 2014 submitted some information on West Virginia Railroad which I found on Wlkipedia after doing a search on for List of West Virginia Railroads. It was cool and neat, I tried to add a few things, but they mostly got rejected because I didn't have enough information usually only a line or two. So three years later after doing some research capture some information here and there, I try to submit two more entries with a little more information for Alexander and Rich Mountain Railroad and it's successor Alexander and Rich Mountain Railway. The comments I got back said I didn't specify a category (I'm editing your page/your category) and another reviewer said he didn't understand the article. So I give up and just need to delete my account as this is too complicated for my simple mind. Thank You Denzilriley (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have made some positive contributions to Wikipedia in the past, and these need to be attributed, so it is not possible to delete your account. You can retire from Wikipedia by just not using the account, and you can put a note to this effect on your talk page if you wish. See Wikipedia:Retiring for your options. I must admit that I, too, was puzzled by Draft:Denzil Riley because it doesn't mention the subject at all. What is it really about? Was it intended to be a new article, or an additional section in an existing article? Perhaps it just needs a title and a lead paragraph? Dbfirs 19:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

sorry I don't know what draft Denzil Riley is I edited two pages Alexander And Rich Mountain Railroad and its successor Alexander And Rich Mountain Railway both are form the 1892-1905 timeframe. Thanks for the information Denzilriley (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You successfully created and edited Alexander and Rich Mountain Railway, but your attempt to create Alexander and Rich Mountain Railroad was unsuccessful because you submitted Draft:Denzil Riley without a heading by mistake. Both articles need a brief lead section and some in-line references, preferably from more than one source. See WP:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for guidance. A belated welcome to the Teahouse, by the way, and we hope you stay to make further constructive edits. Please don't give up just because you got one thing wrong. We have all made mistakes. Wikipedia procedures take a bit of effort to follow them all properly, but we are always happy to help any editor who is trying to improve the encyclopaedia. Dbfirs 23:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

How to made "subpages"

I want to know for the future how to make a page branched off of my user page. Such as User:Duck1738/ExampleName. I see other Wikipedians doing this and I am wondering how I can do this myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duck1738 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Duck1738, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's extremely easy to make a subpage. You can make it either as a sub-page of your user page, or of your sandbox. (I've got quite a few in both of these. Perhaps sandbox is the best place for working on new articles. So, just click on your own sandbox tab at the top of the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Duck1738/sandbox) and to make a sub-page, just type /ExampleName after its address in the browser url window. (i.e. User:Duck1738/sandbox/ExampleName) You'll see a new page telling you there's "There is currently no text in this page". Look for the "Create" tab towards the top of the page, type a few words, and then save. Simple as that. Hope this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and you could consider adding this wikitext to the top of each sub-page you create: {{user page|logo=yes|noindex=yes}} It adds a flag to clarify it as a published user-page, not a main Wikipedia article. On the next line you could add: *[[Special:Prefixindex/User:Duck1738|Show all my user sub-pages]] which displays every sub-page under your account. I find the latter especially helpful. Cheers Nick Moyes (talk)

Thanks Nick Moyes (talk · contribs)! That really helps! This is purely curiosity, but would you delete your own sub-page or propose it for deletion normally? Duck1738 (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome - glad to be of help. I've taken different approaches to doing work in sandboxes. I don't believe it's possible for an editor to delete their own page or sub-page. But they can put the code {{db-user}} at top of the page, and save it; one of our over-worked and equally unpaid administrators will jolly along shortly and delete the page for you. Of course, if you've worked on just one topic in a sandbox and want to submit it to Articles for Creation you can add a submit template to the page instead. If accepted, this has the advantage of retaining all that page's past edit history. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

[1] {{cite book}}

[1]