Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 900

Archive 895

←

Archive 898

Archive 899

Archive 900

Archive 901

Archive 902

→

Archive 905

Edit summaries, and minor edits

How important are summaries? Should I always write one as a rule?

Also, what exactly constitutes a minor edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelson21101805 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Nelson21101805 Welcome to Teahouse. It is a good practice to leave a edit summary to briefly inform (a way of communication) other editor of the nature of your edit as Wikipedia is a collaborating work among many editors. An minor edit is defined the edit is superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions such as bold a word. However, it is always encouraged to provide edit summary even if it is a minor edit. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nelson21101805. Help:Edit summary suggests always leaving a summary, and tells you what to do if you forget to leave one. Help:Minor edit explains what we mean by "minor edit", usually typographical errors. "Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit." Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposing an Addition to Country Info-Boxes

What is the formal process for proposing an addition to country info boxes? The info boxes are already quite amazing for quick glances relating to economics, linguistics, demographics, geography, etc. but they seem to be lacking in political science information. The Democracy-Dictatorship Index (DD Index) and the Polity IV Dataset are used extensively throughout the field of comparative politics and international relations yet their coding for each country are only available on their respective pages. Up until recently the DD Index coding was not even available in the article (I have since added it).

The info-boxes already contain the "official" categorization of each country's government and legislature but these are largely not used within the field of political science. There is however abundant information already available for economics and some international politics like GDP, PPP, Gini, and HDI. I would like to propose adding additional information to the info-boxes either immediately after the "Government" and "Legislature" sections or immediately after the "Gini" and "HDI" sections: the DD Index categorization (there are six possible) and the Polity IV ranking (both number and categorical name).

As I've said, DD Index and Polity IV are used extensively throughout the field of political science and especially comparative politics. Polity IV is updated every year and while the DD Index hasn't been updated since 2008 it is currently in active progress. I don't think this is too much of a problem as some countries have Gini coefficients from the 1990's.

I just want to know the official route I can go down to propose this? I'm a bit new to the background workings of Wikipedia but I've been editing for quite a while. Thanks --Olfbir (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Olfbir. The proper place to discuss your proposed changes is Template talk:Infobox country. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey Olfbir. To some extent it depends on how broad an audience you seek; the formality you want involved; whether you just want to dip your toes, or lay out a concrete proposal with some degree of formality. I mean you could start with a post to Template talk:Infobox country, which has 247 page watchers. Or maybe you might start by asking the folks over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics for some input. A wider forum though would be the proposals section of the village pump. There are also ways to escalate discussion; to seek a wider audience regardless of which forum is chosen to first raise some matter. For example, the discussion can be done through the auspices of a request for comment – and such an RfC can be made very broad by advertising it through {{Centralized discussion}}, or for some really huge issue, a site notice can be placed. (I am just give you a picture of the playing field – I'm sure you realize I'm not suggesting [nor would it be appropriate] to start at the top of the mountain). I would test the waters with a post at the template's talk page and maybe the village pump afterwards, if that garners very little comment (the fact it has 247 page watchers probably means only about 50 of them or less are active). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm interested in English Wikipedia. But do not know that how I contribute... — Preceding unsigned comment added by شادان خان (talk • contribs) 03:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I'd recommend to read the tutorial Help:Getting started, there's a bunch of links to other tutorials in there to get you started. Another great tutorial to start with and get familiar with the Wikimedia software is Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure. If you have any further questions feel free to ask. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not give a chance?

Hello everyone, I find a friendly atmosphere here at Teahouse so I am encouraged to join.I created an article "Draft:Alliance School Kermanshah" a few days ago and I put "in use" at the beginning. It was put in draft just as i clicked the first publish button.The person did not give me a second to continue. I wish to know what the problem is and what I can do. thank You Alex-h (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Alex-h. As the message on your user talk page said, the article was moved to draft space to give you an opportunity to prepare it for article space. When you believe it is ready for article space, you can click the "Submit your draft for review" button, and if the reviewer accepts it, they will move it to article space. —teb728 t c 15:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me add Alex-h, that the purpose of the {{in use}} tag is not as an excuse for entering an unreferenced page in article space (if that is what you are thinking) but rather to alert other editors to avoid edit conflicts by not editing the page concurrently. —teb728 t c 16:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Alex-h. I'm really sorry to hear your frustrations. You did almost everything right (apart from where you started from), and teb728 makes a good point about the template. Perhaps I can invite you to look at if from the other perspective? As soon as you put content into the mainspace part of Wikipedia, we all expect a minimum standard of quality, content and references. So despite the 'in use' template, there really wasn't enough there to start with, and so the best place to construct an article from scratch would have been in Draft or your personal sandbox. I must say, you did do the right think by very politely questioning Cabayi on their talk page. I'm sorry you didn't get the courtesy of a quick reply there, but hopefully our response here will satisfy you. So, as teb728 says, you are still absolutely free to continue working up the article as you were hoping to do. I believe criteria for school notability have got a bit stricter in recent times, so do read WP:NSCHOOLS and check that you are able to supply references that demonstrate notability is being met before you expend too much time and effort on a page which would stand no chance of making it.

But speaking personally, I would never risk creating a brand new article from scratch in the main part of Wikipedia. It's inevitable that they start out dire. I always work on pages in my sandbox to ensure they're at a reasonable standard before moving them into 'mainspace' (i.e. the proper encyclopedia part of Wikipedia). Sometimes I can take over a year to get one ready; other times I do it in an evening! Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:@Teb728:, Hello and thank you for your warm response. I am glad I put my question in Teahouse. First for I have received your valuable guidance which I will use in my future work,Second, because I have found friends like you. Thanks again. Alex-h (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Changing name of cities into their official name.

I tried to change the English accent names of Karnataka state cities into recently changed official names. But my edits were reverted. What's reason behind reverting as the names were officially changed by state government itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishwanath K G (talk • contribs) 08:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. When you make changes in an article it's recommended to explain what you changed and why in the edit summary, this way other editors know what and why you changed something. I think it's best to discuss the changes you want to make on the article's talk page and provide proof that the name has been changed (such as a newspaper) so your edit won't be reverted again. If you have any further questions feel free to ask (: Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vishwanath K G. The article naming policy says to title an article from the common name rather than the official name. See WP:COMMONNAME. —teb728 t c 09:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see you didn't move the articles to new titles (as I had assumed) but just changed the text. Anyway the same principle applies. BTW, I notice that your mechanical changes broke links in at least one case. —teb728 t c 10:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding a picture to an article

Hello, I'd like to add some pictures to an article about my father. Could someone offer any assistance ? Thanks

Ross Perry — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossAPerry (talk • contribs) 16:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

RossAPerry, You can use Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard to upload the file(or I can do it for you) and then I can help you add it to the article. What is the source of the photo? WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Categories

Hello,

I just created Manpreet Bambra, and I was having issues with the category additions. I added the ones that I could remember existed, but I was wondering if someone could help correct/amend/add more. I’m aware Bambra is of Indian descent, not sure if that has any specific categories. She also lives in London.

Thank you!

– Joesimnett (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I think the categories are alright, you can of course add more categories as long as they exist and are relevant. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Is there a setting which only shows problematic edits?Cedric White (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Cedric White, There are a variety of filters available, see WP:RC for more information. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the setting that I find useful for me when monitoring live edits. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nick.Cedric White (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

A Fox in Space AfD

I just nominated A Fox in Space for deletion using Twinkle. The previous article I deleted (just beforehand) went through fine, but this has not created the link (red link on AfD). Did the same thing, not sure what happened. Any ideas? Thanks. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aurornisxui, do you mean that the AfD page is a red link? If so, it seems to have been created now. Often it takes a few seconds for Twinkle to process and execute everything. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 16:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

SkyGazer 512, thanks so much. I waited a couple of minutes and refreshed the page, I guess it wasn't long enough (still new at doing this). Aurornisxui (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

TWA

can i restart the wikipedia adventure. Denkiden (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

New Article Rejection Question

Hi.

 I submitted an article on "Stanton Cohn" (now in my sandbox).  It was rejected because of a lack of inline citations.  I've added appropriate citations.  How do I resubmit for evaluation?

many thanks Meeplistener

--Meeplistener (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeplistener (talk • contribs)

References

How to create page for not for profit social organization ? Can I get such template ?

How to create page for not for profit social organization ? Can I get such template ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reporterbihar (talk • contribs) 11:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Consider first if your non-profit "fits" under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If not, what you write will be deleted sooner or later. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Reporterbihar. Your use of the phrase "page for" makes me think that, like many people, you have the mistaken idea that Wikipedia is a place for an organisation to tell the world about itself: it is not. That is called promotion, and is not permitted on Wikipedia (whether commercial or not). Rather than "page for" I suggest thinking of "an article about" - and remember that it should be based on what people unconnected ith the organisation have chosen to publish about it. Wikipedia has little interest in what anybody says about themselves, or what they want to say about themselves. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary lists?

Hello,

I have a question about some list articles that have been created. Personally, I don't see a what their point is. Examples include: United States Marshals appointed by Donald Trump—they're only appointed for a four year term at best and no one in the corresponding list has an actual article, save for a handful. United States Attorneys appointed by Donald Trump—they serve at the pleasure of the President, yes an article can be created about the person/nominee, but why the list? Political appointments by Donald Trump: How is this relevant? United States Ambassadors appointed by Donald Trump: Again, the relevance would be where? All presidents appoint ambassadors, I have yet to find an entire listing for another President. I can understand articles like List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump because similar ones have been created for previous presidents and judges can serve for a lifetime, so it makes sense. The other ones, to me, don't. If there was precedent for past Presidents and corresponding lists, I could understand but I haven't found any such lists. Others include: List of Donald Trump nominees who have withdrawn, List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations, List of short-tenure Donald Trump political appointments. Can these be merged somehow? Do guidelines somewhere state where, why and how lists are to be created? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't be sure, but I think a lot of those were because the main Donald Trump article is ridiculously long and the articles had to be split, and the others were overzealous politic nerds (or simply Trump fans) rushing to document everything they could. If you want ridiculous detail, check out some of the timeline articles (Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2017 Q4) is one such article); I commented on one of the talk pages suggesting removal of extra detail, and another editor came along and stated that the article should have as much detail as possible. I'm pretty sure there's a policy related to that, but honestly I don't know. Trump's presidential trips are also in articles sorted by year. In other words, any subject relating to Trump probably has an article about it. It might be that the political junkies don't trust us mere mortals to follow all the new exciting events. I'm not sure about guidelines, though. You could try to get the lists deleted, and I would commend you for it, but it would be quire the uphill battle to get them deleted and not be brigaded by the politic addicts. Good luck if you try. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Parsing Meta-analyses with Medical Content

Hi Teahouse hosts! Thanks for the invite.

My question pertains to citing sources with medical content in an objective manner. Since meta-analyses often are inconclusive, or point to potential design flaws in the model of clinical studies, does this mean this content is not appropriate for an encyclopedia?

My personal view is that it would be appropriate to describe the content of well-reviewed research even if the author's conclude that further research is needed to establish scientific fact. Surely the conclusions of the authors should be a focal point, but to simply disallow the information entirely does not seem objective.

The page in question is not a medical page Withania somnifera, but nonetheless contains medical content. Given that it is topic related to Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM), there is inevitably a high degree of skepticism - rightfully so.

I have been guided by a more senior editor on the page to analyze Journals by the impact factor as a measure of research quality, and I have culled my sources appropriately.

My question is: now that I have two sources that meet the criteria, how can I parse the substance of their analysis? Is it not appropriate to cite the conclusions of the authors that (I quote here, although I realize this would need to be paraphrased) "Given the central role of WS in Ayurveda and its promising actions in the realm of modern cancer research, it has potential to move forward as a cancer chemopreventive nutraceutical."

Similarly, the analysis by MSK has substantive points that - in my view - are worthy of inclusion into the encyclopedia. This has been previously acknowledged on the Talk page, yet the senior editors on that page continue to rollback attempts at inclusion.

Now, I would like to attempt an 'additive' edit - leaving the existing skeptical language intact but also introducing these analyses of a substantial body of research. I realize that my previous attempts may not have been perfect, however like other new editors here, I am frustrated by the rollbacks of the entire body of edits rather than engaging in a more nuanced discussion about which language is appropriate.

Any insight is appreciated.

Cheers! Digeridoodle (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

References

No. Let me explain: No. The first reference is not a meta-analysis (Palliyaguru et al 2015 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4899165/pdf/nihms757562.pdf). It is a speculative review. To quote from it: "So far, no clinical trials in human populations have been carried out with WS or WA with cancer or cancer biomarkers as end points." The quote you selected from the end of the article has no value. In things medical, Wikipedia is a trailing indicator. Hence no individual clincal trials (and no pre-clinical or in vitro). A PubMed search on W. somnifera and cancer, limited to meta-analyses and systematic reviews yielded no literature. MSKCC is not a peer-reviewed journal. Please review WP:MEDRS. Again. David notMD (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Tor.com

Is https://www.tor.com/ considered a reliable source on Wikipedia? -- Puzzledvegetable (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Puzzledvegetable, What are you planning to use it for? WelpThatWorked (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could use this page as a reference on Generation ship. -- Puzzledvegetable (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Article rejection despite numerous sources

I've submitted an article (profile) for approval with 16 sources, including articles fully dedicated to the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Scott_McGovern

I received the following comment:

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies)."

Many articles with fewer, less valid sources have been approved. I'd be grateful if anyone has any advice to offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guccigang0505 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Guccigang0505 as the comment says, the refs only mention him in passing, he is not their focus. That is not enough. Try to get sources dealing with him specifically. WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Guccigang0505: many articles with fewer, less valid sources exist. That does not mean that they have been approved: we used to be much less careful about this than we are now. All of them should be improved, or deleted if better sources do not exist. You are welcome to tag them appropriately, or even to nominate them for deletion if you think that is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to request for deletion of a Wikipedia Signpost article?

Does anyone know how to request for deletion of a Signpost article? I have already asked the same in the newsroom, but no reply as yet, hardly waited 30 min I know and I am being a bit impatient but I want to get this clarified as fast as possible, so asking here if anyone else has experience with the signpost and is online just now and can help out. Any help or guidance to make this process faster will be much appreciated. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: Try WP:MFD. RudolfRed (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Oh wow! Thank you so much for directing me there and replying so fast!!.... I found nearly an exact case same as mine... thanks! Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/Gallery Thanks again. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Just one more question... according to above example... I assume that the deletion process is the same... I can use twinkle to put XFD and state my reasons... even on a current and live Signpost article? I want to do it now. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: Yes, Twinkle would work, but I would recommend against what you are trying to do. I don't know what you want to be deleted out of the Signpost, but based on how the discussion you are using as an example went, you'll be pilloried for the world to see. Go ahead, do it if you wish, but I doubt the community would take kindly to it. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@A lad insane: I want to delete my own Signpost article... "you'll be pilloried for the world to see" SIGH... I wouldn't dare delete someone else's... :( .... thank you for the comment. This is a mess, I know I maybe should be a little more patient but.... I have nominated it.DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: messed up ping :/ -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry for jumping to conclusions. If it's your own article, you should be fine. I don't know how the discussion will turn out, but no pillorying should be involved. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

What's the best way to work with users who repeatedly remove verifiable content?

Last year, I edited the 88rising page. Since then, various users have removed a verifiable fact (Jaeson Ma is a founder) in a repeated (multiple times) and focused (often, the only edit was to remove Jaeson's name from the wiki) manner.

Several times, the edits not only removed mentions of Jaeson from the page but also removed the verifiable sources. In addition, editors were anonymous, and their edit history is only removing Jaeson's name from the 88rising page.

I've reached out to users as appropriate citing the sources and have resolved misunderstandings with some of them, but I'm at a loss for how to work with anonymous users who remove this verifiable information in a manner that blatantly disregards Wikipedia's principles.

I am escalating this to the Volunteer Response Team (OTRS) but was curious if anyone has any experience with this. If so, what would you suggest doing?

Thank you! Gcheng94 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Investigating... RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I've asked an admin to protect it here RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected - 3 days - RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 17:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi RhinosF1, Thanks for your help! I saw the page protection is for 3 days - after 3 days, is it open to revisions from anonymous / unverified users? Just asking because I'd love to work with you and others to find a longterm solution for this issue. Thanks,Gcheng94 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can edit again after 3 days. With IPs you may be able to get a range lock on them for a bit longer. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 20:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking for music articles to work on

Relatively new to Wikipedia and just getting back into the swing of things. Can someone here who works on music articles give me some guidance on ways I can help? Sorry if this is a stupid questions. Grimothy29 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This one looks like a good starting point, and here is a page that may be helpful; it is an interesting walkthrough.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You might also take a look at the WikiProject Music. Schazjmd (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding Grimothy29 so he sees there are replies. Schazjmd (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tamanoeconomico and Schazjmd: Thank you, I will check it out. I apologize I am working on learning the Wiki systems and am getting into the habit of replying properly. Grimothy29 (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Qualified?

Hi, I was wondering how can I be qualified to answer questions here? I recently became an "extended confirmed user". Does that mean I am experienced enough? Or is there anything I need to do? I don't feel confident enough, though. What if I answer questions wrong? James Booker fan (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

James Booker fan, There really is nothing saying you can't now. I started around 5-10 days in. I answered a question a bit wrong once, and someone else gave me a note about it on my talk page. Be wp:Bold! WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh that's brilliant. Thank you! James Booker fan (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Look at the archive of past Q&As to get ideas of what is asked and how answered. There is a core of editors who are here on schedule, but others are not prevented from helping out. Keep in mind that majority of queries come from new editors, so be kind. David notMD (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hear, hear, @James Booker fan: I take my hat off to the folks who are here day after day answering questions, but it's also a place where lots of other people help out from time to time. It's good to give back to the community.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Creating self profile/page

Greetings, thanks for the add HostBot‬. I do have a question but I don't want to sound bias. Is it possible to create a profile of myself or an autobiography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FenfenSiah (talk • contribs) 22:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello FenfenSiah, and welcome to the TeaHouse. Wikipedia is not like social media or LinkedIn - we do not create profiles of ourselves. Instead, we write articles about notable subjects, just like any encyclopedia. Autobiographies are technically possible, but they are strongly discouraged due to the conflict of interest: it is just about impossible to be impartial and balanced when talking about yourself - you might like to read the article at Wikipedia:Autobiography for more information.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, FenfenSiah. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for your question. It's a good one. If by 'profile' you mean just a few lines about yourself and your interest in editing Wikipedia, and which does not promote your music, your business, or expound on some crank theory, then, yes, you can do that. You have a userpage for that purpose. See WP:USERPAGE for what you can and can't use it for, and maybe also take a look at other editors' pages to see what they've done. Just click on the link in their signatures.

But if by profile you mean a Wikipedia article about yourself, that's a very different matter. Whilst it is possible, it is very inadvisable, indeed. Even if you were Notable enough to have been written about in detail in books, journals or magazines by independent authors, how neutral would that writing be? Might you be tempted to quietly leave out the newspaper article about some scandal that affected your earlier life, or the prison sentence you once received? You might like to read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for reasons why trying to create an article about yourself is a bad idea. For that reason, you would have a very heavy Conflict of Interest which you would have to declare according to the policy I have just linked to. So no, please don't consider writing an encyclopaedia page about yourself, and most definitely not an autobiography. That would be deleted very speedily indeed! But do feel free to edit articles here that need improving, and to create a userpage for yourself. happy editing! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

McCormick Theological Seminary

What's the correct template? The turn of events o (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It is {{more citations needed}}. I fixed it for youWelpThatWorked (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Flipboard, Kik Messenger, Line and Evernote's pages are in need of having a [+] added to their Stable release segments.

I wanted to add a [+] to Flipboard, Kik Messenger, Line and Evernote's pages' Stable releases segments but decided not to in fear of getting banned. How do I get pass this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vramtr (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vramtr: If you are not comfortable being Bold, then you should discuss your proposed change at the articles' talk pages. Make sure to provide reliable sources for your proposed changes. RudolfRed (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Information in the article on Saint Marcella seems to be plagiarised.

The article on Wikipedia on Saint Marcella seems to be mostly lifted from "Parade of Faith: A Biographical History of the Christian Church" by Ruth A. Tucker https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Hb-S41iWo7oC&pg=PT106&dq=Marcella,+Jerome&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiypJ2G4JfgAhUHbisKHZc2CJoQ6AEIQjAE#v=onepage&q=Marcella%2C%20Jerome&f=false

Or is it the other way round? Could Ruth Tucker have plagiarised Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret Mowczko (talk • contribs) 10:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Whilst a lot of people - and websites - do indeed use Wikipedia as a source, and some fail to credit us, I suspect in this case we have seen text copied and pasted into Wikipedia against our policies on copyvio. I say that because the really useful WikiBlame tool allows us to search for when specific text strings were first added. I searched for It was at the home of Marcella that Jerome first met Paula, a devoted and scholarly woman who would become his long-time intellectual counterpart. WikiBlame indicates that User:Holyvincent pasted in content without an edit summary in this diff dated 19th November 2011. Tuckers book online appears to be dated as epublished in July 2011. It would therefore be appropriate to speedily remove the copyright text, leaving a very clear edit summary as to why, leaving a url to the ebook for others to find. But better still, if you have interests in that page, why not write (in your own words) a summary of facts that you can extract from that book, and add it as a reference source? Thanks for raising this issue, and do please remember to sign all talk page posts with four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~). In this instance, because you included line breaks in your post I found it really hard to work out whether one person had asked a question and another person had answered it. Signing every post avoids that kind of confusion. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

~~~~ Thanks Nick, I'm still very new to this and unfamiliar with the protocol in these conversations. I'm not sure that I have the time to remove all the copyrighted material. From a quick look, most of the article has been taken from Ruth Tucker's book. Perhaps, the article can be reset at an earlier date (for want of better terminology.) I'll see what I can do. Marg Mowczko ~~~~

From looking at Saint Marcella, the one edit by User:Holyvincent in 2011 nearly tripled the length of the article. The content was added without an Edit summary and also without citations. There have been more than 50 subsequent edits by others, so it may be difficult to extract/reword the copyright content. To Marg, what Nick meant by signing is that when you type four of ~ at the end of your comments, your User signature will be added. David notMD (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I have cleaned the copyright violations. Future reference: when you find a copyvio you should revert to the last clean version ASAP; mark the tainted portion of the page history for redaction by an administrator; warn the infringing editor, etc. I wrote a step-by-step guide for AfC for copyright cleanup, that can be viewed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Step 1: Quick-fail criteria – click "show" to see the hidden section. Of course, it's tailored for AfC review, but most of it is of general relevance for copyight cleanup. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to add this template {{Coord|40|37.23|6|N|73|56.28|2|W |display=title |type:edu_region:US-NY}} to Yeshiva Tiferes Yisroel, but each time I do so, it says that the parameters are invalid. For some reason, it lets me add the coordinates if I change them to 40°37'23.0N 73°56'28.0W, but these coordinates are inaccurate. What am I doing wrong? -- Puzzledvegetable (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Puzzledvegetable. Welcome, and well done for finding the Teahouse. (I'm not actually sure what our own coordinates are!). Your problem, I think, is that you've managed to mix decimals into a non-decimal format. In other words, you're showing degrees, minutes and seconds with a minutes figure that you've subdivided with a decimal point before you get to the seconds bit. Can I ask where you go the coordinates from? I see you're trying to give the coordinates of a school in Brooklyn, which I'd never consider doing. But if I did want to, I'd go to Google maps, click the point where the feature is locate and copy and use the decimal coordinates that appear on screen. (If you desperately wanted them to appear as d/m/seconds you'd use the format=dms command to force conversion from decimal to degrees/mins/secs. How does that sound? Need any further help with it? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:I'm not really an expert on how to display latitude and longitude coordinates. I did get my coordinates from Google Maps as you described. That gave me the coordinates 40°37'23.4"N 73°56'28.2"W or 40.623173, -73.941177. What you see in the template was my attempt at reformatting that to fit the template's parameters. In the process of doing that, I must have made the mistake you pointed out. Now that you have the coordinates as they appeared on Google Maps, what is the correct way to reformat them for the template? Thanks -- Puzzledvegetable (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Puzzledvegetable: Yeah, coordinates can be awkward beasts to work with - if it's not in British OS grid format I can't find my way out of a paper bag, even with a GPS in my hand! Whilst I toddle off and have a play, please could you click the 'share' link on Google maps and paste in the url showing the feature you want to map. That way I can check it more easily. (it's getting late here, so I might collapse before answering. I may have to reply tomorrow, if that's the case. (I'm in UTC time here). Nick Moyes (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:Here is the link: https://goo.gl/maps/7yhHsTSeacp --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Puzzledvegetable: OK, we're sorted. For some reason your extracted coordinates were not quite correct, and put the point a little way out. I got and used the following from your url: {{coord|40.623168|N|73.941177|W|format=dms|display=title|type:edu_region:US-NY}} (though my first attempt put you in the hills of Kurdestan or somewhere like that as I forgot Brooklyn is W of 0 longitude, whereas in all the articles I put coordinates in, they're always E of the Greewich meridian. Doh! Just remember not to use decimals when working in deg/min/sec, and also that, counter-intuitively, coordinates never really define a point - they actually define the corner of a square into which your point falls. The size of that square depends upon the level of accuracy (the number of digits) in a those coordinates. I did recently try to put in coordinates accurate to 7 digits after the decimal point, but the template rejected them. So I guess there's a 6-digit level of accuracy. Does this give you what you wanted? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, those coordinates lead exactly to the school. Sorry to keep you up past midnight for something so trivial. -- Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Rule for comma use

• Columbus, Ohio, Symphony Orchestra
• Columbus, Ohio Symphony Orchestra

Is one of these more correct than the other? I've searched for a rule in the MoS and can't find one. deisenbe (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Deisenbe, I would say Columbus Symphony Orchestra rather than either. —teb728 t c 21:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Or if you really think you need to say Ohio, then "Columbus Symphony Orchestra in Columbus, Ohio" —teb728 t c 21:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: More to the point, which one of them is more wrong than the other? They're both wrong! Neither describes the correct name of the orchestra and both only serve to mislead, so neither should be used. teb728 is spot on. Alternatively, if you're using them in a list where the name is always followed by its location, try "Columbus Symphony Orchestra (Columbus, Ohio)". What do you think? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to have been unclear. I made up the orchestra example. It's the general principle. How many commas should there be in

The bank in Guadalajara Mexico was robbed.

John was born in Elmira New York in 1990.

What I'm asking for is not better wording, but whether there is a WP preference for one or the other. Articles I write have a lot of place names, and there's a little disagreement with another editor on which is more correct, if one is. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Two commas in each; see MOS:GEOCOMMA. - David Biddulph (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The case where before-after commas are not required in punctuating a restrictive is in a proper name or nickname such as the "Columbus Ohio Slugger."Tamanoeconomico (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Lists

Hi there,

A few years ago, the Massachusetts state government formed a commission to list 1,000 points of interest across the state. Would it be appropriate to publish the list, and include links to articles about the points of interest? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldop1895 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Eldop1895, Probably not here, but may be nice on the wikivoyage.org project WelpThatWorked (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

CKE closing in Anaheim

Why wasn't the sunshine dinner mentioned?? Or the fact that because of the sunshine dinner carls jr had the first fast food that served alcohol. Sunshine would close and Carls jr would open. This is important info that helps sew together CKE family. Ex employee Stephanie Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C6F0:E020:1577:DA01:E115:9E09 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Stephanie. Wikipedia has no central authority writing articles; dictating what goes into them or is or should be kept out; making sure articles contain what they should and should not. Instead, it has only the structure of sets of policies, guidelines, suggestions for good writing, etc., that have been fashioned through consensus; the dictates of the type of reference work it is and at its base, toiling away, thousands of different people editing what they are interested in. You ask why X is missing and Y nowhere to be found? Maybe because that content should be in it but no one has put time into the article to discover what's missing. The only person right now who seems bothered about this is you, so maybe you're the one who should add it.

Every article, every sentence here, comes from someone rolling up there sleeves and getting to work. If that's not you – if you're not comfortable adding content (or aren't, maybe, yet, as a newbie, as unfamiliar with how it all works – mayhaps you should go to the article's talk page and make suggestions for what to add, or point our what's missing and so on. It is helpful to know this much, though, if nothing else: Wikipedia runs on sourcing. Content is properly added only if the world outside of Wikipedia has already written about it. Wikipedia synthsizes what reliable sources have written about subjects. So any suggestion you might make is many time over superior, and far more likely to be acted upon, if it is accompanied by you pointing out a specific source that corroborates the proposed edit. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Hydraulic Entertainment (2)

Can another experienced editor please look at Draft:Hydraulic Entertainment (2) and advise User:CPOlivette about this draft? They initially submitted two copies of it, both of which were declined for not having independent reliable references, and then resubmitted this copy of it with more references which however are not considered reliable. I also think that the draft is not neutrally written, but would appreciate the comments of another editor. I also think that the filmography is too long, but that is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess you are right. It has lack of reliable sources. More sources are needed to clarify the draft. Buy I don't think that it is not neutrally written except for the introduction.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^talk 20:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

My assessment of the article is that it consists of an introduction, which is non-neutrally written, and a long list. I don't see a part to the article that is neutrally written. What have I missed? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

My assessment would be that the draft is promotional and that the references given do not show significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Several references are not independent, some are broken, some have no apparent relevance to the subject. —teb728 t c 06:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

1980 Catalan regional election

List WIP. The turn of events o (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Josep Benet Anton Cañellas Francisco Hidalgo

I can't seem to make those articles, can you help me? The turn of events o (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello The turn of events o, and welcome to the Teahouse, from a fellow newbie and "typos and stuff" fixer. I am not a host, but this may help someone who, like me, did not understand what the line "Josep Benet Anton Cañellas Francisco Hidalgo" was referring to.

After reading the title page, 1980 Catalan regional election, I realised that three different names were grouped on that line: Josep Benet, Anton Cañellas and Francisco Hidalgo.

I see now, in edit, that you typed the names on different lines, but the software did not recognise your intention.

I now understand that you are attempting to create a page for each of those people, similar maybe to the page for Jordi Pujol, or maybe to the shorter page for Heribert Barrera.

Although I am sure a host will come along to give you the appropriate guidance and links, this Articles for creation page may have some of the information you were looking for.

Thank you for your previous edits, and for giving me the opportunity to help, and discover some of the features of this board.

Garlic Frog (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Image Copyright permission

Hi,

I have uploaded a image from Facebook. Below is the link for File:Richmond_Town_Methodist_Church_(RTMC).jpg. I don't know what permission is needed to be updated for getting it removed from Wikimedia. Please help me by having look at the image submitted and let me know for a solution.

Thanks, Setu.V

Link TO Image: commons:File:Richmond_Town_Methodist_Church_(RTMC).jpgSetu755 (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You may be best asking at commons. This forum is for Wikipedia. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 06:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Setu755. Your question "I don't know what permission is needed to be updated for getting it removed from Wikimedia." is a little confusing to me. You need do nothing if you want to have it removed from Wikimedia Commons. It will happen very soon. This is because you uploaded it without any evidence that the photographer on Facebook gave their permission under an appropriate Creative Commons licence for it to be reused. So, not unreasonably, the image has been tagged with a warning notice. Thus, it will be deleted in the next day or so unless you can supply evidence that it is correctly licenced.

To stop it getting removed, you need to provide that evidence - it's as simple as that. The evidence would either be a clear statement on the uploader's page that it is free and available for commercial and non-commercial use (e.g. a CC-BY-SA 3 licence). Seven days is often a ridiculously short time for anyone to garner such permissions, but you can also do that after deletion, if you wished. The easiest way is to approach a photographer and ask them to upload it themselves (ie they licence their own image themselves), but not everyone wants to do that.

Wikimedia also has what's called an OTRS system where a person can email in their permission retrospectively, though it's difficult to explain the process briefly here. You can go to Commons:Undeletion_requests, but that would only be an option after you had somehow obtained the original photographer's permission. Had you uploaded your own image with a valid CC licence I don't think there's a way to request deletion afterwards on the grounds that "I didn't mean to give it away" - that'd be like asking for a Christmas present back after you've given it to someone. I hope I've covered all the options you might have been wondering about. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

How to add company profile

How to add a company article of various industries in {{portal|Companies}}. Can I get a template for writing information about the company and where to submit this article? I researched a lot on how to contribute to {{portal|Companies}} but I am not able to draft it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Setu755 (talk • contribs)

High again Setu755. What is the page name of the article you would like to see added to Portal:Companies? Does that page actually exist yet?

From your question, I infer not. I need to explain that Portals are just a different way of presenting information that already exists about a broad subject in general and will include a selection of notable company articles. Regard them as "topic-tasters", if you like. You do not create articles there. If it is your intention to draft a new article about a company, first make sure it is worthy of having a page here. We have set criteria for allowing pages about companies, which you can read at WP:NCOMPANY. If it won't meet that, you'll simply be wasting your time and setting yourself up for eventual disappointment. Wikipedia is not here to promote people's favourite businesses, you see, and no person or company has any right to expect they an article here. You would start to work on your plans for a new article, either in your own sandbox or, better still, via the creation wizard at Articles for Creation. See also Wikipedia: Your First Article and The Wikipedia Adventure which offers an interactive tour of the basics of Wikipedia, including how to sign every talk page post, which you keep forgetting to do. (Just type four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) at the very end line of every new post, please. As I mentioned earlier on your userpage, leave at least 24 hours between asking the same question again at a different venue to avoid duplicating volunteer effort. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

retrieving my Tango Cafe page

Hi and thank you for a friendly landing pad.

I created the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tango_Cafe a few years ago, now it is deleted based on "notability". I missed the discussion unfortunately. Not contesting the decision (though I disagree) but I would like the page to be viewable by me and by those to whom the Tango Café was a precious center for art, music, poetry, dance, literature and language instruction. Also, it would be great to recover all those links to sources that I found.

I haven't figured out how to make that request and to whom. I found the page Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles but not quite sure what to do next. Select an administrator at random, and then what?

Thanks. --Notsofeo (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Notsofeo, Try WP:REFUND Hope it helps WelpThatWorked (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Notsofeo: @WelpThatWorked: no, REFUND won't restore articles deleted after a deletion discussion. The first thing to do, Notsofeo, is contact the deleting administrator on their user talk page. They might be willing to send you a copy of the deleted text. You can't re-create the page unless there is significant new information and sources that didn't exist when the article was deleted, but at least you could get a copy of the text for your own hard drive. --bonadea contributions talk 06:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you did post to REFUND just after the page had been deleted a couple of months ago. There's some more advice in the response you got then. --bonadea contributions talk 06:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Just go to http://deletionpedia.org/en/Tango_Caf%C3%A9 --Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Good answer, Shantavira. We're often very good at forgetting that other systems exist outside of Wikipedia that record deleted content. I'm sure that'll help Notsofeo retrieve his deleted work. But, as was stated above, trying to resubmit the same content with new evidence of notability will only lead to disappointment. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

'Mousing over' (I'm not sure of the actual term)

Hi, apparently I've lost the ability, somehow, to 'mouse over' and preview articles printed in bold, thereby previewing the first sentence or two. I find this feature very handy and makes my experience using Wiki more valuable. Can anybody help me find how to get this ability back? Is this the place where I can ask? Thanks for helping, Freesumpin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freesumpin (talk • contribs) 09:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Freesumpin. Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, this is one of the places where it's fine to ask questions like this. At one time the ability to hover over a blue wikilink was an optional 'beta gadget' called Hovercards that one had to personally activate at Special:Preferences, but I had thought it had been inmplemented by default for all users a year or two ago (though I might be wrong) as I've been using it ever since it first appeared. So, I'm wondering, are you using a different browser which doesn't support their use, or where pop-ups have been blocked? If not, and as an alternative, try activating 'Navigation popups' in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It's the penultimate option in the 'Browsing' section. Maybe other hosts here can offer further suggestions. Let us know how you get on. (Here's a test link for you to try: mouse.) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Freesumpin: You say "articles printed in bold". Does that mean the feature works for normal links like "Wikipedia" and the problem is only with bold text? The feature requires a link and bold text is usually not linked. Can you give an example? There are two similar features: "Page previews" (previously called Hovercards) at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, and "Navigation popups" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. You can only use one of them at a time. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Translation to English of Paula Almerares pages

Hello all, My name is Sergio Almerares. I am a newcomer here. I started with the translation, from Spanish to Italian, of Paula Almerares description. Se is a good Soprano singer that lives in Argentina. And obviously we are of a same family, even if I live in Italy. After this I have updated the Spanish page with latest news about her. And would like to have translation also in English. I did it but I am not able to publish. Can someone check my translation in English and if it is OK help me to publish it?

Kind regards. Thank you so much! Sergio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alme Jr (talk • contribs) 11:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, Sergio. The obvious problem with Draft:Paula Almerares is that it has no citations to published reliable sources. The Spanish and Italian Wikipedia's are perhaps not so insistent as we are, but here on the English Wikipedia you need such citations to demonstrate notability. See WP:Referencing for beginners for how to provide the citations. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Further advice is available at WP:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, appears you first worked on the draft of the article on your User page - which was the wrong place, and should be deleted as soon as possible - but than have properly copied all that content into Draft:Paula Almerares. David notMD (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: Not on the actual user page, as far as I can see. Seemed to be a user subpage. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah. David notMD (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)