Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 748

YTV Movies
How Do I Add YTV Movies In The Search Field? Because It Doesn't Exist!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnypr (talk • contribs) 23:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Try YTV (TV channel) David notMD (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikitext for mobile wikipedia
Hi, I recently stumbled across the mobile version of the article I've been editing and noticed that certain Wikitext functionality doesn't work/shows differently. I was wondering if there's any place which states what Wikitext doesn't work on mobile/alternatives or if there's any guidelines on formatting when it comes to the mobile version? As in, should I just ignore the fact the mobile version doesn't display as intended?

Issue: see: Mobile vs. PC. first is cosmetic, styling being ignored (e.g., width should be 100% fit). second, more worrying, is the collapsible table is permanently collapsed (no show/hide button) I think the latter is an issue with the template I've used: Template:Game_log_section_start, so I don't know if I should ignore it, switch templates or try and see if I can edit the template for mobile... Wiki nV (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . This is my personal opinion, and I am not representing Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. The mobile site and the mobile apps are not yet fully functional, even after years of development and massive amounts of money being spent. I do almost all of my editing and reading of Wikipedia on an Android smartphone, and I use Chrome and the desktop site almost all of the time. I find it fully functional. I have taken articles to Good Article status on my phone. I am a fairly new administrator and have carried out many hundreds of administrative actions on my phone. I have answered over a thousand questions here at the Teahouse on my phone. All using the desktop site on my phone. So, I think that you should pretty much disregard the shortcomings of the mobile site when writing articles, and let the highly paid developers work on that. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if that's the case, I guess I won't stress too much about it then. Figure I'll see if changing the problem template using NavFrame to mw-collapsible will fix the problem, if not I'll let it go. Thanks for the quick response. Wiki nV (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Splitting an Article
So, I'm working in my user sandbox to create an article for safety signs as a general topic. Currently, the English Wikipedia uses Warning sign for this topic, 'Safety sign' currently redirects to this article. However, that article's focused on roadway warning signs. Safety/non-traffic warning signs have a blurb at the bottom of the article. It's 5 sentences that's uncited and isn't really helpful (I'm not sure how to describe it, it's just a list of a couple of common instances of signs, like warning of electric poles and dogs.) Should I put a split article request on the [Warning sign] talk page, or when I'm ready with my page just request it as a new page when I'm done with it in the sandbox?--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 03:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. You could proceed in any of several ways. You could simply expand the "Non-traffic warning signs" section of Warning sign, and propose a split when it has enough content to justify a separate article. (It is hardly worth asking for a split with so little to split off at present, in my view.) Or given that you already have a sandbox draft in progress, simply continue working on that until it is ready to submit for review, and once it is approved, add a link in Warning sign to the new article, perhaps re-writing the text of that section at that time.
 * By the way, do please provide full bibliographic data for your citations in your draft, not just URLs. Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I'll just try to get it it to a point where it's able to stand apart on its own. Given the way that page is, I don't think adding more information about a somewaht different topic would be beneficial to that article. I'll also correct the references before then. Thanks for the help, --The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 06:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

visakha
Okay so this is just weird. im seeing the text {{subst:tfm|Infobox Muslim leader]} on the top of the page for Visakha. It appears to be attached to the infobox too, so i cant remove it without removing the infobox. Any idea how to fix this? I havent been able to find anything apparent in the source code that would cause this. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * scratch that. it appears to be glitch on the infobox for religoius infoboxes in general. im seeing it on the Anathapindika and Gautama Buddha page as well. Any1 know where to go to resolve this? I dont deal with too much internal wiki stuff. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . If you do not get a quick answer here, please try the Village pump - technical where the helpful geeks gather. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot about that page. I have copied my inquiry into that page. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleted page
Why was Draft:Nick Jr. (Brazil) deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FayyadAllhassan (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Actually, it was not deleted, it was converted into a redirect in this edit. This was apparently done because we already have an article Nick Jr.. I understand that the draft was about a Latin American version of the channel. But the draft also said that the programming was almost identical, specifically it said . Do you really think that there is enough difference  for a separate article on the Latin America version? Perhaps you caould add a section about that version to the existing article. If it gets large enough, it could later be split off into a separate article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I could not see it. It redricts to Nick Jr (the US ver.) [null Here you can talk to me]) (My contribs) @11:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Nick_Jr._(Brazil)&redirect=no
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Nick_Jr._(Brazil)&action=history
 * Alexis Jazz (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Alexis Jazz (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding a Wiki Photo
Hi there,

I am struggling to add a photo to a page I'm working on. How do I 'prove' that the image is mine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidtoChurch (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I see that some of your edits were deleted due to copyright concerns. If you take a photo and it is published by a website with a copyright notice, then it is presumed to be covered by copyright. You have to provide very convincing proof that the photo is now freely licensed, which means submitting the required forms in legally correct wording. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You have two problems now. First of all your username is that of an organisation which is not allowed: Username policy. You will have to change your username or create a new account. Second you need to go to c:COM:Contact OTRS to provide permission for the images. Alexis Jazz (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Media Wiki Software
I have not been on Wikipedia In a While. I noticed when I logged in the Software had updated. What were the changes? Thegooduser  Let's Chat  00:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Thegooduser. I see you edited 30 March. The MediaWiki version has not changed since 29 March. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

My alerts and notices icon and logos all changed Thegooduser   Let's Chat  01:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned at Village pump (technical) PrimeHunter (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Creating a page
Hi,I have joined Wikipedia recently and I would like to contribute.Can you please guide me in creating a page about something useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucksbunny39 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the teahouse
 * Creating new articles from a blank start is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia. In future I urge you to use the Article Wizard to create a draft under the Articles for Creation project. There, an experienced editor will review your draft once you think it is ready. Only when a reviewer approves will the draft be moved to the main article space. This avoids the situation where a deletion is requested soon after the initial version of an article is posted.
 * Also, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article, if you have not already done so. The advice there can be very helpful, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are some steps which, if followed, often work well:


 * First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your  subject  clearly meets the standards listed there.
 * Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
 * Third,  This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing. 
 * Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
 * Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
 * Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
 * Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
 * Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

how to create an wikipedia page
please guide me how to create an wikipedia page. I have created the page, but it has been deleted by editor. Please help me to create a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narendrasingh0 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * (1) Wikipedia is not for self-promotion (2) if your article already has been deleted, find out why before making a new one. (3) a 5 minute Google search on Narendra Singh Plaha (the article you intended to create) indicated that notability is insufficient for a Wikipedia article Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually,, a can never conclusivly indicate that a topic is not notable, as sources may be available, but not online. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is news to me. Could you please provide one real life example where that might be the case? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * see WP:CS. Books are valid ciations, but are not online. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

what is a wiki
how do I create my own wiki for community psychology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thavhana (talk • contribs) 13:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Thavhana, welcome to the Teahouse. A wiki is a website on which users collaboratively modify content and structure directly from the web browser. There are thousands of wikis. The best known is this one, Wikipedia. The most common software to run a wiki is MediaWiki which is used by Wikipedia. A Wiki hosting service like Wikia makes it much easier to start your own wiki. Some people incorrectly say "wiki" as a synonym for Wikipedia or about a single Wikipedia article. See more at Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! If you want to make a Wikipedia article then see Your first article. We already have an article Community psychology. Do not create an alternative Wikipedia article to the existing one. Wikipedia editors collaborate on the same articles and don't make their own versions. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Are these statements NPOV?
These statements below would be added to legal paragraph of a country article on Wikipedia. The statements would not be added in this order and might be adjusted slightly for better text flow. Statements are backed by reliable sources. Would you consider these statements below appropriate/NPOV or should they be excluded for some reason?

Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) "Around half of the population believe that corruption is prevalent in the judicial system" (http://www.business-anti-corruption.com/country-profiles/lithuania)
 * 2) National surveys have revealed that around half of citizens would neglect to report corruption due to beliefs that corrupt individuals would not be punished. (https://www.lrp.lt/lt/spaudos-centras/pranesimai-spaudai/atsakomybe-uz-korupcija-turi-buti-neisvengiama/24617)
 * 3) In national business surveys, corruption is highlighted as the primary issue prohibiting economic development and international competitiveness. (http://www.ve.lt/naujienos/ekonomika/ekonomikos-naujienos/lietuvos-seselines-ekonomikos-varikliai---kontrabanda-ir-mokesciu-vengimas)
 * Please provide links to article and sources. Alexis Jazz (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources (links) added. Information is relevant and 2/3 sources are Lithuanian, because English is unavailable. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So the article is Lithuania? Alexis Jazz (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If the sources are considered reliable (Identifying reliable sources) I personally see no problem with the statements. Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a clear answer, Alexis Jazz. Any other inputs? I would appreciate a second opinion. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Russian proxy troll activity was just caught. All the evidence can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Detektyw_z_Wilna about this Detektyw z Wilna. He must be banned immediately for using proxy. Reasons for deleting these senteces are also presented there. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are two incident reports on this. Stop spamming. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI. Doug Weller  talk 11:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, this delves into WP:DNFT territory, but I will still answer. NPOV is not only about sourcing reliably; it is also about presenting the sum total of reliable sources in a balanced manner. For instance, Rex Tillerson's assessment of Donald Trump's intellect is as well-sourced as these things can be, but it certainly does not mean we should put it into the article about Donald Trump under a "psychological assessment" header (even if it was "balanced" with members of Congress lavishing Trump with praise).
 * I have no idea whether in the present case it would be undue weight, depending on where it would go in the article etc. but I sure have an idea about how appropriate it is to come here without giving the full context (cf. ANI thread). Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 11:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Your answer is super, thank you . I am unsure if you implied that I am trolling, but if you did, that jump to conclusions was unwarranted Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The impression I got from the ANI link which you did not mention was that the present thread was a case of "going to the other parent". We get semi-regularly (maybe once a month or so) people who come here to ask a very general and vague question, and as soon as we get enough specifics we discover they are trying to get us to take their side in a content dispute they have. You may have good intentions, but you omitted the crucial context that your edits were disputed.
 * Furthermore, while the Teahouse, Help Desk etc. hosts are usually happy to help well-meaning newbies who get into trouble because they did not realize what they did, few of them actually like helping single-purpose accounts with an agenda. The fact that you get yourself on ANI and do not disclose this fact is a red flag, even if it was not done maliciously. I cannot read AJ's mind, but I believe they had an unpleasant feeling of having been trapped into giving you the above reply.
 * Now, I apologize for posting the "do not feed the troll" line; I should have taken the time to review your contributions beforehand. I still have concerns that you might be here to "right great wrongs", but I do believe you can become a valuable editor. I would strongly advise not to charge head-on into contentious areas first, though, so that you can get a bit of experience in the more quiet parts of Wikipedia editing. Maybe you could head over to WikiProject Lithuania and see if there is anything you could help with? (Just to be clear, that's friendly advice, not an order - you can do whatever you want without breaking guidelines or being obnoxious, but getting into a hot dispute without a bit of Wikipedia experience is probably not a great idea.) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 15:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * My statement of seeing no problem with these particular statements was on the condition that the sources would be reliable (I don't know if they are) and I assume talking crap about Lithuania is not all you do. My statement should not be taken as an unconditional endorsement. Given the rest of the discussion and how I had to pull information as basic as which article this question concerns from you, well.. you connect the dots. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your statement was not used nor will it be used as any kind of endorsement. Let alone unconditional endorsement. I just wanted to check (for myself) if it is likely that I am in the wrong defending against what I perceive as needless censorship by Pofka. As for "connecting the dots", wouldn't it be better with clear and well-articulated messages rather than some shady implication? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't. The reason is that you've used survey results to back up a statement in a manner that comes under the definition of synthesis. Better to say something like "According to a survey, around 49% of the population believe that corruption is prevalent in the judicial system."

Help for editing Alamy
Talk:Alamy

I don't know how I should improve the proposed edit to get it accepted. Please advise. Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well Alexis, this is... definitely a unique situation. As far as Wikimedia projects "referencing themselves", as a source, this happens exceptionally rarely if at all. Even in the article for the Daily Mail, where we talk about Wikipedia essentially banning it as a source, we reference the Guardian and the Huffington Post, who in turn reference our own RfC on the subject, rather than referencing the RfC itself. The piece you include on the lawsuit seems fine, although as I presume you are aware, doesn't actually treat Commons directly at all, and so is not perfectly on topic for the issue.
 * This is, as far as I know, only the second time I've ever suggested something similar, but probably the best option here is to create a source where none exists, by which I mean contacting news organizations with the primary sources you have (the Commons discussions and evidence there), and offering your individual input as a primary source to them, and then using their coverage for us to say ourselves what exactly it was we did or didn't do. I know I've personally been contacted by Wired regarding my on-wiki activity, and they seem to show a fairly keen interest in reporting on Wikipedia related topics, so finding a good contact for one of their reporters might be a way forward. Looking at their website, seems that or  might be good places to start. That might be a pretty long and drawn out process, but assuming they're interested, your really doing a lot of their work for them, so you're kindof doing them a favor.   G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  10:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually Alexis, now that I think about it, if you're interested, shoot me an email and I'll forward you the contact information of the person from Wired who reached out to me, and you can try to get in touch with her directly. Presumably she's open to writing about Wikipedia, and open to having contact with users, since she's out there contacting people herself.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  11:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks and done. I've added the lawsuit part to the article as indeed it has no actual connection to Commons. Interestingly, Alamy has contacted OTRS in 2015 and successfully had all criticism censored from the article. Guess what, I put it back. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm? Well that would certainly be out of character for OTRS to remove criticism in response to a company request, so long as the information was well sourced and on topic. Got your email. Gimme a little bit to find the information.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * and yet it happened: Talk:Alamy "In response to a complaint from the firm at OTRS, I re-edited the article, keeping the sourced material, but decreasing its emphasis". I took a dive in the history of the page and DGG reduced all (well sourced) criticism to a single bland line: "In response to criticisms about its updated contributor contract,[3] Alamy responded by stating that the changes only reflect the company work style and do not represent a significant shift.[4][5]". That is not even remotely balanced. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm...might just be a difference of editorial opinion. I suppose courtesy ping, not that anyone would necessarily even remember a ticket from three years ago. At any rate, let me know if you don't get the email reply and I'll resend it.   G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I got the mail, thanks! I don't blame DGG, I wouldn't be surprised if Alamy would send some pretty intimidating email. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OOPS. Let me correct this error: In the milder form,, quite possibly unaware it had been removed earlier. Sorry. Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah. Paid sock farm it seems. That makes more sense.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, that's what I sometimes do for a complaint at oTRS--I try to find some innocuous way of responding positively to a part of the request without doing the radical & inappropriate change they really want. (not in the hope they'd be satisfied--they almost never ever are--but to show that we do listen to complaints and they are not getting just a form response. ) By trivial I mean a edit that would clearly be justified by our usual practice, such as I would certainly make if I come across it independently. If it's more than that, of course the request goes on the talk page.   DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

How to interpret references in articles
Dear Wikipedia Users:

I printed out an article the other day titled: Lorentz Ether Theory. There are notations in the article to supposed references, e.g., [1], [A 9], but the referenced articles in back have no such corresponding alpha-numeric notations. I have no way of knowing what referenced articles go with what notation in the article. Can anyone guide me through this? Thank you.

EB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.131.172 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I must admit the formatting of references in Lorentz ether theory is quite terrible especially in print format. If I understand correctly, and that is no given, there are three sections of references: "Works of Lorentz, Poincaré, Einstein, Minkowski" which refer to the "A" citations (so for instance A 9 means "reference number 9 from the Lorentz/Poincaré/Einstein/Minkowski section" which is Poincaré (1906) which (I suppose) refers to "Sur la dynamique de l'électron"), "secondary sources" which are the "B" citations and "other notes" which are the "C" citations.
 * That would certainly be worth a cleanup, if a charitable soul could do it. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 17:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. The numbers are clickable links in the online version Lorentz ether theory. Clicking leads to the right reference and should display it with a blue background but it may depend on the browser. There are three subsections with numbered references in Lorentz ether theory. Numbers with "A" correspond to the first section, "B" to the second, and "C" to the third. There is currently a single reference number [1] with no letter. That reference is displayed at the bottom of the whole page. It's unfortunate that the printed version does not show these connections. Most articles use a simpler system. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Who is supposed to remove the rejected box from my article?
First time submitter, so I thought I'd start small and just submit a page on a Catholic school in the area. I used other Catholic School pages as an example, but got rejected for no reliable sources. (Funny how some get approved with no sources and others get rejected.) Either way, I added sources and more information. I resubmitted the article; but was I supposed to remove the "rejected" box at the top or leave it in? Gocrusade (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally prior reviews are left on the draft.  I would add that just because one Catholic school merits an article does not automatically mean another does as well.  Please see Other Stuff Exists.  Not every business or organization merits an article here, even within the same field. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply! All good info, much appreciated. Gocrusade (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how local are the reports that you have used as references, but please note that " attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". You might like to add an additional reference if you can find one.   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  18:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * , according to the school's website and NCES, this is a K-8 school. K-8 schools do not generally have articles on Wikipedia.  It puzzles me as to why you changed the infobox to indicate K-12.  It makes it appear you were aware of that and are trying to hoax the article into the encyclopedia.  Its been nominated for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And deleted. John from Idegon (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This does not look like a hoax to me, but rather a simple error, as the body of the draft gave the correct grade range. I have requested the deleting admin to restore it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , The draft has now been undeleted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching and confirming my infobox error., the error occurred not as a hoax or deliberate misinformation, but rather was me trying to get the correct abbreviations for preschool, which I highlighted from another infobox.  I must have brought over the entire line by mistake.  Mistakes don't sit well with me either, and I am determined to get this and future submissions 100% accurate. Thanks again to you both for helping. Gocrusade (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , I apologise for my rather over the top overreaction. However, I'd strongly suggest you not waste any more time on the draft in question. Our notability standards for schools presume that diploma granting schools are generally notable, and non diploma granting institutions are generally not. There is no reason to think this school would be any different. Most lower schools that are notable are notable for reasons other than being a school (in the US, most frequently because the building they occupy is on the National Register of Historic Places), and the very few that are notable for being a school have been the subject of substantial academic study. That's not this school. I'd suggest you abandon this draft. John from Idegon (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

How do you become an admin?
I see other users as admins. How do you become an admin or apply as one? I've tried to revert as much vandalism as I could and I made over 100 edits now. So how do I apply as an admin? HorsesAreNice (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, Admins are simply editors, if rather experienced ones, and except for a few extra tools, have no special authority. I should know. Secondly, an admin must have quite a bit of experience here. There is no set amount required, but it would be very unusual these days for an editor to become an admin with less than a year of active editing, and several thousand edits, in a variety of areas. Just keep contributing in the best ways you can find, and perhaps you will become an admin in time. Don't worry about that sort of status hunt, and all will go better. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

But how do you apply to be as one? HorsesAreNice (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , you do so at Requests for Adminship. Read the information there and at WP:ADMIN linked above, and you will know a great deal more about the process. An admin must be able to follow such links and understand policies and process instructions found via the links. You might also want to read Process is Important. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I became an administrator last July after eight years of editing. The process is a fairly difficult one and many candidates do not succeed. I can tell you that your chances of success with only about 100 edits are negligible. I think that it is wonderful that you want to become an administrator, but most successful candidates will have at least a couple of years of experience and several thousand edits. What is expected is general helpfulness in many areas of the encyclopedia, and a deep knowledge of our policies and guidelines. Many voters expect significant content creation such as writing new articles and major expansions of articles. Candidates who are confrontational or make a lot of errors in applying policies and guidelines are usually rejected. Please read Requests for adminship for details on the process of applying, and feel free to ask more detailed questions. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Truth be told,, Cullen328 is being a bit optimistic about the chances of an editor with just a hundred edits passing the RFA process -- the odds with a thousand edits is effectively zero. One question the voters will ask, which you might want to keep in mind for the future, is this: what do you plan on doing with admin tools that you aren't able to do now?   Ravenswing   20:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Edits
I made a constructive edit to the page called "Amawaka language" and it was deleted, yet other users were talking about satan on the page, which was highly inappropriate, yet their edits stayed. Any help on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.200.134.58 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . You may not be aware of this, but the article history shows all reverted edits, so any Wikipedia user can see your contribution history to the article.  As it happens, you are the only editor making inappropriate edits about Satan, as well as making other unproductive edits to that and other pages, for which you've received numerous warnings on your talk page. You're currently under a block for disruptive editing, and when you come back, I strongly recommend you review some of the excellent advice for new editors found in profusion here uptopic.   Ravenswing   21:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wants me to hit Publish but it is greyed out
Hi there I.m trying to submit something from my sandbox to be reviewed and this comes up in a box:

"Press the Publish changes button at the ⇓ bottom ⇓ of the edit box to request a new review. A box explaining details about this submission will appear at the bottom of the page. An automated robot will update the page later and remove the draft article box."

However, there is no publish button at the bottom, and the one at the top is greyed out - should i create a 'draft' page and send it from there or what? thank you!

Mikkopresents (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you've had to wait a while for a reply. I'm not sure why the Publish changes button was greyed, out as your account seems in order to me. I've taken the liberty of hitting the publish page button for you, so it should now be in the queue for assessment and publication at Articles for Creation. If that's not what you want to do, just revert my last edit to your sandbox. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that was quick! Your submission at Articles for Creation has now been looked at by but sadly has not been accepted at this time. Because I was the one who hit the 'publish' button, I got the notification and reasoning, but have transferred it to your talk page.  You can now continue to work on the article at Draft:Old New Orleans Rum (Celebration Distillation). Kind regards,  Nick Moyes (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Redirects
I'm working on a page where the subject has two different common references - how do you do that thing where it says "Blah blah redirects to this page"? thank you again - yall are always so helpful

Mikkopresents (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you want WP:HATNOTE, particularly the section for the template Redirect RudolfRed (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect is used in some cases to notify readers about an existing redirect which could also have referred to other pages. Based on your edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Old_New_Orleans_Rum_(Celebration_Distillation)&diff=prev&oldid=834065076] I think you are trying to create a new redirect. See Redirect for that, but we don't normally create redirects to drafts. If the draft is accepted as an article then redirects can be created. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone is futzing with my article
Newbie here.

I just spotted that the article List_of_compositions_for_saxophone,_piano_and_percussion has been changed in bizarre ways. I originally generated this article although it has had useful small additions from others.

The edits can be seen here:

(cur | prev) 06:30, 7 March 2018‎ 2601:805:4202:3433:4c5f:2262:2d8e:541 (talk)‎. . (22,308 bytes) (-58)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 06:25, 7 March 2018‎ 2601:805:4202:3433:4c5f:2262:2d8e:541 (talk)‎. . (22,366 bytes) (+58)‎. . (→‎Chamber Repertoire (Trio)) (undo) (cur | prev) 06:23, 7 March 2018‎ 2601:805:4202:3433:4c5f:2262:2d8e:541 (talk)‎. . (22,308 bytes) (-7)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 06:21, 7 March 2018‎ 2601:805:4202:3433:4c5f:2262:2d8e:541 (talk)‎. . (22,315 bytes) (+1)‎. . (undo)

and consist of a bunch of edits making words randomly misspelt, as well as some larger edits, including a comment about "but what matters is stopping the coommies from taking the U.s.a". Clearly this is not helpful editing.

My questions are:

1) Should I expect that this person reappears or is this kind of futzing normally random and without a second dose?

2) How specifically do I reverse these changes correctly? The four edits above all have "undo" after them, but I'm not sure whether clicking the top "undo" will undo all of them as a block, or whether I have to click all four "undos", and if so in what order. Happy to take instruction on that.

3) I'm not sure why I was not notified of the change, bearing in mind that the article is in my watched articles. Maybe I did something wrong in setting that up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmarbach (talk • contribs) 22:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) We don't know if that user is going to come back or not. Vandalism happens.  Vandals sometimes return, sometimes they don't.
 * 2) I've gone ahead and done that, but Help:Reverting has the info. Basically, go to the article's history, select the edits in question by clicking the dots to the left of them, view them by clicking "Compare selected revisions" (right above the dots), then click "undo" over on the right.  You could also click "undo" in the history four times, but that's just an unnecessary amount of work.
 * 3) If the article is on your watchlist, it should show the last change to occur within the past so many hours or days. Make sure you have "Hide: unregistered users" unchecked, and adjust "Period of time to display" for however long you expect to be inactive at a time (longest is 30 days).
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . Just to add on to what wrote above, you should understand that there are no "my articles" on Wikipedia. Techinically every page on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time and creating an article does not mean you have any ownership rights or final editorial control over it. Wikipedia hopes that editors which make good faith efforts at improving articles over time per WP:IMPERFECT, but occasionally some choose to just mess around and disrupt things. One thing about list articles is that they still need to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines per WP:SAL. Another thing about list articles is that its not really a good sign when a large number of the individual entried are red links, which means some of these individuals might not be worthy of mentioning per WP:LSC. Perhaps it would be better to write the articles first and not just add a bunch of inappropriate red links. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi how to list an article for review
Hi i just completed writing my first draft. I need guidance to know how can i submit it for review and published online (talk) = bloggerglittergloss
 * You rather just did. What you wrote was blatantly promotional and I've accordingly deleted it. Wikipedia articles, and all other Wikipedia content in other namespaces including drafts, must be strictly neutral in both tone and content. "Talking up" the subject of an article is not permitted. You're welcome to take another go at it, but stick strictly to facts in neutral language and don't talk in glowing terms about the subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note also that this has been discussed very recently as Draft:Abhijeet Gholap, which was created by people working for Golap. please review WP:PAID. --bonadea contributions talk 11:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. However i would like to see my draft in order to re edit it again. please help. I am new towiki and i wanted to edit it before submitting is there any chance so that i get the written data back to edit it further. (talk) = bloggerglittergloss —Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

My user page
hello i'm an artist and want to put some of my art on my page here. how do i do that? Also, if i add a link to my instagram, would that be a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecreativejanet (talk • contribs) 11:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see the Userpage Policy for information on what is and is not acceptable content for user pages.   User pages are meant to give a brief introduction of yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia editing, and should not have content unrelated to Wikipedia.  331dot (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I also believe that you would need to release the copyright to your artwork in order to upload it per the procedure described at WP:DCP. If you make your living as an artist, you might not want to do that. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . You could create a scaled down version of one or more of your artworks, with limited resolution, and release that, while not releasing a full-size version, if you so choose. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

okay, thanks guys. I think i'll just keep it off of wikipedia then.. jane 05:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecreativejanet (talk • contribs)

I need advice about whether my website is an appropriate external link
Greetings,

I would like to create an external link on the McNab Dog page to my website. Can someone please advise me if my site is ok for this purpose.

My site is mcnabshepherdhs.com

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnabk9 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * My own view is that it would be inappropriate for you to add a link to your website to McNab dog under External links. Such a link would be WP:LINKSPAM, particularly when added by the site's proprietor. On balance, the purpose of the link would seem to be more for the promotion of the website than for the benefit of readers of the article.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 06:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixing References For Thomas Mengler
Hi. I was trying to fix the reference section for Thomas Mengler but it doesn't show up in the editor. I was getting the reference number but it wasnt showing the links in the default format. Can anyone help me with this?

Thesuitsharvey (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * I took a look at Thomas Mengler and it does not have the in-line citations required for this type of article. Without inline-citations, the references listed have to be considered just general references or external links. They will not be shown with reference numbers. To fix this, you would need to convert these links into proper references with tags and move them into the body of the article where they are needed to support the statements made. If you're unfamiliar with how this works, the page referencing for beginners may be a good place to start.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

How do you make a box for your userboxes
Check out my user page! I added a bunch of userboxes but I have a problem. How do I put them in some sort of box? I see that with other admins who have userboxes. Well now I have a box but there is so much wasted space in my user page. How do I change the width of that box? HorsesARENice''Ride me to my talk page 06:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * I see some signs that you were trying to create a table to hold your userboxes and perhaps arrange them in a more suitable fashion. Some of the templates you have invoked make some assumptions about formatting. Those assumptions may seem counter-intuitive or at least at odds with your intended layout.
 * When you've seen someone else has laid things out on their user page in a way that you'd like to imitate, you are free to copy or imitate what they have done (giving proper attribution in an edit summary - see WP:COPYWITHIN). If you don't understand what they've done, ask questions, either at that user's user talk page or here in the Teahouse.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 06:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

My autobiographical stub article has been nominated for deletion
Why my article is suspended — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeshan Ansar (talk • contribs) 06:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * You have a user page at User:Zeshan Ansar. That's a place where you can write a few things about yourself and your WP editing.
 * You also tried to make a copy of that user page into a mainspace article, which has now been tagged for speedy deletion. Attempting to create an article about yourself is not against the rules, although it is strongly discouraged. What is against the rules is attempting to create an article where there is no indication that the subject (you) meets WP's criteria for notability and which contains no references. Be satisfied with your user page for now and spend some time learning how to edit on Wikipedia, within the rules. We're happy to answer questions here at the Teahouse, but you may want to start with some tutorials like the Wikipedia Adventure or your first article and referencing for beginners.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 07:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

History of deleted page
How to get history and discussion of a deleted page? Capankajsmilyo (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! WP:VDC says that only administrators can. However you may check Special:Log/delete, and The AfD archives for more information deadwikipedian (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

How do you customize your name?
I sometimes see other admins with colored names, or resized names. For example: This user has their talk page say “Care to discuss wwith me?” but I don’t know how he did that. Also some admins have bold usernames or colored usernames. Is there a way I can do that? HorsesAreNice (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See CUSTOMSIG on how to modify your signature. RudolfRed (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if there were any reason you have added an absolutely massive picture of a horse to your userpage? There's nothing wrong with having that image there, but it seems so pointlessly blown-up that I don't  think anyone is going to bother to scale the page to view it all in one go. Maybe you'd like to consider changing the wikitext to:  which will give you what you see here.

Or you could use |thumb| for the default smaller image positioned on the right side of the page. Good luck riding your house through articles, looking for typos, too! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To avoid future confusion, we only say "admins" about users with administrator accounts. "Users" or "editors" are general terms for all users (we may avoid "editor" if they have zero edits). PrimeHunter (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is my new signature. "HorsesARENice''Ride me to my talk page 03:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)" But how do I color it? HorsesARENice''Ride me to my talk page 03:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You can examine the code of an existing colored signature. Here is an example for you: HorsesARENice'' Ride me to my talk page.  See Web colors. I removed unpaired   at the end of  . Unpaired code can cause problems for tools even if they don't affect rendering. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverting major changes by COI editor
The current article for Mayuri Upadhya is a complete rewrite by someone who claims to be her manager and reads a fair bit like an puff piece. It cites almost no sources. Citations are other Wikipedia articles(!) or Youtube videos, and a non-independent link.

Is it ok to revert it to the completely in this circumstance? deadwikipedian (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at it, I suppose you could, but it wasn't that much better before. Certainly the references to Wikipedia should be removed. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, (you don't seem to be suffering too badly from your death). I would suggest reverting to the version you link to, but removing all of the unsourced content from it too. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've restored the old version. As for my death, I got better :) deadwikipedian (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good work, and welcome back to life. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is also appropriate to warn the user with uw-paid1 if there is reasonable cause to believe that he is being paid to represent her interests. Editors who are being paid to write about a topic are required to disclose that information. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

crossreference
How do I crossreference in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.156.240 (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, 24.84.156.240, and welcome to the Teahouse! Could you give us a concrete example, since what you're saying could mean a number of things. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Help getting new page started
Hello, I’m new to Wikipedia I’m currently studying communications at camebridge and I was just wondering if I wanted to create page and allow it to be published how would I go about doing it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackdaniel455 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here's the steps you should follow:
 * 1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
 * 2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
 * 3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.
 * 4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
 * 5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
 * 7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
 * Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to add to it. You should read WP:YFA, which explains how to create an article and there is a wizard there you can use to create a draft article for review.  However, creating a new article is not an easy task someone new to Wikipedia.  The usual advice it to work on improving existing articles to gain experience, and then take on creating a new article.  RudolfRed (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Everyone, New To This Site
Just wanted to connect with people here. I got an invite to become a member and I'd like to know what goes on in the TEAHOUSE? haha. Happy to be here :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Budmaster (talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome.  The Teahouse is basically a place to ask questions and bounce ideas off of more experienced users.  Thanks for dropping by.  Is there anything specific you'd like to ask about?  Nessie (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Box office mojo
Hello there. I have a question, does the website box office mojo reference is accepted at wikipedia or website the numbers is preferred.DCEU (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi DCEU, welcome to the Teahouse. Box Office Mojo is referenced far more than The Numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Yes, it is considered a reliable source, per the consensus at the Film's WikiProject and the reliable sources noticeboard. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)