[Portal] Teahouse

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.)

Sayonara Player with reliable and independent sources

Hello members,

in October 2019 the draft article Draft: Sayonara Player has been created. Two months ago it was updated with reliable and independent sources. In the meantime five members worked in finishing a reliable Wiki entry. Could someone please review the current version?

2A02:908:1A74:4360:982B:5BC0:A1F8:5AED (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You could resubmit the draft, but as it stands, it is unlikely to pass. You need sources demonstrating the notability of the software, that is, sources that are both (1) independent of the subject, (2) reliable (meaning, published in an outlet with a history of proper editorial oversight) and (3) deal with the subject at length. Right now, the sources meeting (1) are:
  1. [1] which according to [2] is pretty much user-generated content (see WP:SPS), failing (2)
  2. [3] (wiki, so user-generated content, fails (2))
  3. [4] is a blog so probably fails (2), and in addition three paragraphs likely fails (3)
  4. [5] might be a good source (I have no idea whether the site meets (2))
So at best you have one good source, when "multiple" are required by WP:GNG. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi 2A02:908:1A74:4360:982B:5BC0:A1F8:5AED, the reason your submission was denied was because it lacked many secondary and independent sources. There didn't seem to be any significant coverage and a quick Google search shows the only websites mentioning the software are download websites. Sadly, I don't think your article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Hope this helps. BᴇʀʀᴇʟʏTalk to me∕What have I been doing 09:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear Tigraan and Berrely. Thanks for your answers, which I can't completely understand to be honest. In the Comparison of audio player software there are lots of less relevant players listed with almost no (1) independent or (2) reliable or (3) at length dealing with the subject sources like Guayadeque Music Player, JuK or with even no sources like MusikCube (how can this happen by the way?). After the submission was denied lots of independent sources had been added, but I wonder why there are so many different measurements, given the list of audio players in the English Wikipedia. I was searching for a mighty audio player in a Linux system for over 10 years or more and I would love to share my discovery, as it is the first capable player from my point of view and has been highly praised in tests (see references in the article draft). exclamation mark- Courtesy link: Draft: Sayonara Player 2A02:908:1A74:4360:78D9:9178:E4CD:36B5 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia, because of its nature, contains lots of articles in violation of its policies. The existence of poor articles is no justification for the existence of other poor articles. Regarding the specific articles you listed... JuK has in its refs [6] and a (deadlink) Linux Magazine article. MusikCube indeed lacks sources but a quick search finds two reviews (the first one is from a usually-reliable outlet). For Guayadeque I find this and [7]. Maybe some of those are actually not enough, but they stand at least a decent chance at surviving an "articles for deletion" nomination, which Sayonara Player does not as far as I can see. (If you find an article that has no source and nothing that can be found online, feel free to nominate it for deletion or bring it up and we can do the nomination for you.) TigraanClick here to contact me 14:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Just to chip in on notability, as a GNU/Linux user since about 1998 or 1999 (for whatever that's worth), this software was new to me, but there's a lot of software and not being aware of it doesn't incline me to think it's un-notable either. And seeing it has a launchpad.net project page does add to it's notability. This means it is on the path to become a standard Ubuntu package. If it was in the default APT repositories for Debian, Ubuntu or in RedHat/CentOS - I'd suggest it would certainly be notable enough to warrant an article. Just my $0.02 WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Speaking to myself here because I'm an idiot.. didn't scroll down enough on the homepage for this application. It's in Fedora, Gentoo and ArchLinux. So, I vouch for including this on the basis it is standard software distributed as part of numerous, popular Linux distributions. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Berrely, I clicked that link to the Google search you provided, but must be getting a different set of results to you. In the first page of hits we have the notable Linux Magazine talking about it here [8] and another independent positive review here:[9]. It certainly seems to me at least, notable enough for inclusion and is likely to have hundreds or thousands of users given the breadth of distribution it enjoys in mainstream Linux distributions. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you WinstonSmith01984 It is good if others also understand the factual, objective point of view based on the sources, because you get self-doubt caused by the non-comparability and non-objective views that sometimes appear in the talk. 2A02:908:1A74:4360:35F6:6811:155C:68F3 (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome, I'm going to try compiling it even, looks like a great media player! One other concern I had, was the rationale for objection based on notability being that the "only" websites mentioning it were "download websites". That adds to the software's notability - rather than detracting from it - because it establishes that the software is being distributed on the Internet. I would draw a different conclusion to Berrely given that fact, but that's just me. I'd also point out it seems like quite a high standard this article being held to. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there anybody who could review the article? I don't understand the number of pending submissions, but it's a little lower currently...?! 2A02:908:1A74:4360:2048:8F0:323F:CF88 (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Help with a citation

Can someone kindly help me correctly cite a source to an essay by a specific writer that is part of a series of essays included in a gallery publication, i.e. a curator/writer Merike Talve wrote the essay "Vestiges of the Avant-Garde in Installation", an essay written for "Luminous Sites: Ten Video Installations" (1986). Would this be correct?

  • Talve, Merike (author). «Vestiges of the Avant-Garde in Installation», "Luminous Sites: Ten Video Installations", a Video In /Western Front production, Vanguard Publications, 1986 (cat) ISBN 0920974147.

Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown for this type of reference I normally use {{Cite book}} -On the template page there is an example of "Citing a chapter in a book with different authors for different chapters and an editor". Hope this helps, do come back here if you need further assistance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Dodger67 That is very helpful, thank you! I have another question though, is it important in citations for a bibliography to include all writers and artists (for a exhibition publication) but okay to not include them in the bibliography for the individual writer? I ask because some of the publications have multiple writers and multiple artists which sort of makes the entry confusing. Thank you again! LorriBrown (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
LorriBrown, hii! Assuming I understand you correctly, full citations are good for cited references, further reading or bibliographies that are general references, and external links, but for the article body bibliography of the author who is the subject of the article, I recommend listing only the book titles (and other notable/minimal-identifying details about the book in simple language, not as a formatted citation (eg. "Title (year)" for books with their own articles, title translation if not in English, possibly adding "coauthored with Jane Doe" if there are only two or three coauthors with nearly as significant contribution, and maybe "(ISBN:XXXXXXXX)" at the end). Maybe create a table like filmographies if you want to add consistently additional details about the books. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually, turns out WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY goes to the page that has the actual guidelines on what I was talking about. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Usedtobecool Thank you for addressing my question! :-) The thing that I seem to struggle with the most is how much information to include in each line entry in a bibliography (for articles written by the subject) some that do not have citations (no online version of the article available) or for a list of publications (curatorial exhibition catalogues) that the subject has curated and/or written the essay - or may have written an essay for another curators' exhibition catalogue. I can see that some of the examples that are provided do not go into a lot of detail; this seems reasonable because the subject they use in the examples are well know individuals who have Wikilinks. I readily admit that I may get easily confused and overwhelmed with the details.... The subject of the article I've been working is a woman who is not well known like in the examples. It may end up that her notability will be challenged at some point perhaps. I am hoping not but want to make sure the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted to give the article a better chance to survive. Several of her essays are not available on line and in magazines that no longer active but the work is available in certain library and organization holdings. I've found several articles in the local university and have requested some others from the local librarians. She is a Canadian and the magazines are from Canada from the 1980's. Several of the curatorial publications are out of print. I've been able to verify many of the articles thru google books, some archive organizations and good old google. I struggle with how much detail to include for example with the reviews written about artists. I've included the names of the gallery and city which I suppose may be extraneous. I tried to minimize the citations by using archive organizations search function that lists several reviews on one page. In reading the page that you note I see that you should not use the google link unless the book is available on line so I'll need to look at that. I've included the gallery & city where the exhibition took place and I am supposing that would be irrelevant. From what I've read (from my point of view) her writing was brilliant but I understand that is not relevant to determining notability.
Another question is do I need to disclose COI with this subject because she curated a show about a person that I do have COI with? This was not and is not the catalyst for my interest in creating an article for this subject; however, it was how I first became aware of her curatorial activities and writing skills. Kind regards, LorriBrown (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
LorriBrown, no, you do not have a COI, since she can no longer work with the person you have a COI with and hasn't for at least 22 years; unless you have become and remain friends of the family.
Bibliography doesn't require citations since the books are themselves citations (unless the work was written using a pseudonym in which case you need a secondary source connecting the subject with the pseudonym).
A list of works by the subject doesn't add to notability, only works on the subject can. Having a lot of obscure details is worse than having a few of them.
On the technical side, I think this could work:
Published reviews/essays
  • That last exhibition, included in This collection of art reviews (1999), edited by Editor1, Editor 2.
Practically speaking, bibliography is for books, we don't include every piece of writing ever published by our subject. Imagine if we tried to do that with Roger Ebert. This seems specially relevant with the works published in Vanguard. You have already mentioned that the subject worked at Vanguard. That obviously means she would have published stuff in the magazine. If any of those were specially noted/referenced by other writers, those could be mentioned to give useful information, such as "This essay that she wrote for Vanguard was [reasons why this essay became special]". A simple list of things published in Vanguard which gives no further information on why any of it might be important enough to be included, provides no useful information since that adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject than when they read the sentence "She worked for Vanguard in the early 80's".
Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Usedtobecool Thank you very much! LorriBrown (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

username login question

Resolved: OP satisfied with answers given. --Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 14:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Why does one not stay signed in when navigating between, for example, Wikipedia and Wikiquote? Separate question: Why does a username appear blue (active) in Wikipedia (when signed in) and red in Wikiquote (when signed in)? I've noticed this for myself and others. --PaulThePony (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Blue means that there is a page at the destination. For example, you have a user page at User:PaulThePony, so in your signature, the rendered text for [[User:PaulThePony|PaulThePony]] shows up as PaulThePony, in blue.
If there is no user page for the user (either because the user does not exist or because there is such a user but he or she has not created a user page), it will show up as red: [[User:User:NoSuchUser|NoSuchUser]] shows up as NoSuchUser. TJRC (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
As to the other part, likely because it's a different website. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Redlinks are absolutely nothing to do with whether anybody is logged in or not, PaulThePony: they are only about whether a page exists or not. User:PaulThePony exists in Wikipedia, so that link is blue. If you put the same thing ([[User:PaulThePony]]) on a page in Wikiquote, then the link will be red, because you have not created a User page in Wikiquote. (Confusingly, the "redlink" mechanism doesn't work across wikis, so the link wikiquote:User:PaulThePony does appear blue here in Wikipedia, even though the page doesn't exist). --ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@PaulThePony: You are supposed to remain logged in when you change between Wikimedia wikis but it sometimes fails, e.g. due to cookie issues in your browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies, TJRC, Usedtobecool, and ColinFine. Following up, do higher edit tallies result in attainment of editorial privileges? Is it, then, impossible to have particular tallies within Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and Wikiquote, result in one total such that the separate tallies would amass toward such privileges? And, while I've got your attention -- ;) -- should any new follow-up question be presented under a different 'new' subject heading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulThePony (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

PaulThePony, no. The community can trust you with additional tools based on your history of contributions, that includes the quality of your contributions, your conduct with respect to other members of the community, and the level of knowledge of policies and guidelines you display. Edit count doesn't tell much. I am not clear what exactly the second question is, but I'm guessing it is no longer pertinent. You can ask followups here. When you want to ask about a completely different topic, you can either create a new section or do that here as well. There are no firm rules. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
PaulThePony, the only "editorial privileges" I'm aware of with edit count (and by extension, time) is that your account can become autoconfirmed (with 10 edits after 4 days of account creation) and eventually extended confirmed (with over 500 edits after 30 days from account creation). Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 22:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, PrimeHunter. That is very helpful in understanding the buggy nature of the beast. :) Thank you also, Usedtobecool. That does address all of my questions. P.S. You're still cool to me. ;) --PaulThePony (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Tenryuu ????. How may I find out how many edits I've made? --PaulThePony (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@PaulThePony: There are several ways to get your edit count (which may give somewhat different results). One is to go to your contributions page and click on "Edit count" in the box at the bottom. Another is to click on "Preferences" at the top of any page; an edit count is given under the "User profile" tab. Deor (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Up Arrow.png PaulThePony, what Deor said. Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 14:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

With thanks to you both, Deor and Tenryuu ????. I shall do as you suggest. :) --PaulThePony (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(Question) Draft:Sadaharu Yagi for submission

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Sadaharu Yagi

--Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 20:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Since I am not experienced, I am not clear what part of the article looks like “advertising“ as the article looks written objectively and supported by secondary sources which are all facts based data available online. I would like to have an advice from experienced editors regarding what exactly should be changed so that the next submission doesn’t get declined. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you in advance! (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. The person to take this up with is the editor who declined your submission, SamHolt6 (I have just pinged that editor, so they should see this.) For what it's worth, I don't agree with them that it reads like advertising. --ColinFine (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Saw the ping. IP can ask me on my talk page or the draft talk for an in-depth analysis of the issue, but in short I will say the draft is likely in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING given the past undisclosed paid editing issue. Couple that with the notability issue (raised by another AfC reviewer), and the draft has some issues that need addressing. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Without regard to any past issues or whether they are notable, I have to say I agree with Colin – it reads dry and factual, just the way we like it. I see no promotion, puffery, or attempt to mention any non-notable accomplishments (all the awards are Grammys, etc.). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
ColinFine, SamHolt6, and AlanM1, thank you for the professional advice! Yes, I was aware of the tag mentioning something about undisclosed payments. I don’t know what happened with this article in the past, for me the current draft article looks pretty neutral and fact based. SamHolt6, could you please help me fix the situation and get the submission accepted? Should I write this on your talk page? Among Latin music producers and audio engineers, Sadaharu Yagi is well known for his work bringing 3 Grammys to Draco’s recent albums. As a music production geek, I simply want to contribute to getting this article published. Thanks! (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
As they said above, you can contact them at their user talk page or ping them to the draft's talk page. If you reach an impasse, you can ask them not to review the draft again and resubmit. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

One suggestion for the UI

Hello, i have a suggestion for the wikipedia's UI. When we have a long article needing a task done, it is frustrating to read it upto the end then scroll back up to click on the edit button or publish button. I wanted to suggest that can't we have a scroll up button at the bottom right corner in every wikipedia page? I think this will help a lot. Lightbluerain (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Lightbluerain, have you tried using the Home and End keys on the keyboard? Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
The best place to discuss questions about the UI is at the Village Pump, Lightbluerain: either WP:VPPR or WP:VPT. --ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Lightbluerain: A browser search (often Ctrl+f) for "bottom" at Wikipedia:User scripts/List finds several scripts for this or the opposite direction. I haven't tried them. I always use Home and End. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
ColinFine, thanks a lot. Usedtobecool and PrimeHunter, that's a great shortcut! But i use wikipedia on mobile, and we don't have ctrl keys here. Lightbluerain (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

My question is "why not have the tabs (edit, talk, etc) at the bottom of the page as well as the top?" --Khajidha (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Khajidha, so that would take us back to ColinFine's answer above. Teahouse can only help you with what already is. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions to save the page from Deletion

A new page created for Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan is marked for AFD deletes. Please suggest ways to save the page from Deletion.

@Adapongaiya:, please read the WP:GNG for reasons as to why the article is nominated for deletion. Most crucially, the subject has not met Wikipedia's those guidelines.
Please remember to sign with ~~~~ at the end of your post.
--Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 17:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you please let me know how to link this Wiki page Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan to the google search results ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adapongaiya (talk • contribs) 01:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Google search results can't be used as a reference in an article. The search results may change with time. If any of the pages which Google finds are appropriate reliable sources to support relevant parts of the article text, then you can cite the source concerned, rather than the Google result. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

nachos history

I know first hand that nachos were served at San Antonio Spurs basketball games in the Hemisphere Arena in the winter of 1975/76. This was several months before the Texas Rangers baseball games in the spring of 1976. These were the earliest examples of "ball park nachos". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xfthm (talk • contribs) 17:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Xfthm Unfortunately, we cannot accept personal knowledge as a source of information on Wikipedia. All information must be cited to a published, independent reliable source that is possible to verify. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
So to enlarge on that, Xfthm: if you are able to find something like newspaper or sports journal reports on any San Antonio Spurs basketball games in 1975/early 1976 (perhaps in the archives of a local public library) that mentioned the serving of nachos, we could use those as Reliable sources to which we could cite the fact and amend the article(s) concerned. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


Are regular editors able to create WikiProjects? I want to create WP:WikiProject Backlogs, a Wikiproject dedicated to clearing backlogs, and was wondering if I had permission to do that. Thanks, King of Scorpions 21:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, King of Scorpions. Yes, but it is recommended to propose it rather than go ahead and create it directly. See WP:WikiProject Council/Guide, especially the section Creating a WikiProject. --ColinFine (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Bring this up at Wikipedia:Cleanup as they are very active and can recommend what is best.--Moxy ???? 22:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy: On the main page or the talk page? King of Scorpions 15:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Talk page....ask if the project incorporates backlog agendas.--Moxy ???? 16:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Done King of Scorpions 16:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Rejection of Etymology of Chicago

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Etymology of Chicago

--Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 03:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


I had my article, Draft:Etymology of Chicago rejected. The reason given is that "This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission."

In one sense, most people are unfamiliar with the subject. That's why they are looking it up on Wikipedia. I am putting pieces together, fully referenced, in a new way, in the spirit of what I think an encyclopedia should be. My introduction (lead) gives the essentials of what the piece is about.

My piece is a scholarly article -- with no jargon or technical talk -- written for an intelligent person interested in the subject of "where did the word Chicago come from." What have others said, who-what-where-when, and what is new to say about it, based on existing resources. Fifteen years ago, a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune (William Mullen) said that my work would revise history. What Wikipedia has currently for the etymology of Chicago is subject to critical review of the background information.

If a person reading my piece was unfamiliar with the main actors and events, I have links that give context to many of them. Could I please have some other opinions about the rejection? What in this case in meant by "context?

I intend to write more articles in this subject matter area, and I believe that Wikipedia is in the spirit of what I would like to give.


Carl J. Weber (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Carl J. Weber. You write a whole page about the etymology of Chicago but never link Chicago. That article should be linked in the opening paragraph to give context. I also suggest linking etymology, orthographic, provenance, and folk etymology, or using simpler terms. You claim "no jargon or technical talk" but I don't think you realize what sounds technical to ordinary people outside your field. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Carl J. Weber, I personally don't think that the context is insufficient. However, the formatting could definitely be improved to fit Wikipedia article standards. I'll point out a few things:
  • Articles have lead (lede) sections that do not have a heading, making the first heading wholly unnecessary.
  • Do not throw bold and italics everywhere in the article. See MOS:NOBOLD.
  • Headings follow sentence style capitalisation, not title.
  • External links have their own section (usually at the end) in articles. They (usually) do not go in the body. See WP:EL.
I would message the reviewers on their talk pages if you want to get clarification for their reasons. Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 03:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I did a bit of clean-up, but did not address the reviewers' concerns. David notMD (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Carl J. Weber, to above, I will add that, if you are going to link to your personal website, you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) which you must declare. I do not think a link to your website is essential, so I recommend just dropping all the links, then you don't have to worry about it at all.
I was concerned by what you said above, that the "piece is a scholarly article... and what is new to say about it ... said that my work would revise history." That says to me that you are trying to build a new research article of your own, not just summarise what other sources have said. Reading the draft also gives the same sense, that the sources are not used to corroborate the claims in the draft, but rather the cited sources are being used as a foundation for an original thesis. This is incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia. We have a strict NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH policy. If your intention is to get new knowledge out into the world, I suggest getting your work published in a scholarly journal. Only then, will it be acceptable for said new knowledge to be incorporated into a Wikipedia article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Carl J. Weber, I took a pass a this and made some formatting edits. My overall impression was that there is too much information for the average reader.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the other reviewers that it doesn't provide sufficient context. However the article appears to be mainly original research that is not reflected in reliable published scholarly sources. We can't summarize how words are used in primary sources, we only summarize what reliable secondary sources say. Note that writing an article from scratch here on Wikipedia is one of the hardest things one can do because there are so many things that are valued in the real world (novel deductions and beautiful argumentative prose) that are not valued in Wikipedia's hyper-neutral no-original-research world. We cannot cite your own material unless you first get it published in a scholarly source, and even then it the viewpoint would only be given attention in proportion to its prominence among other scholarly theories (see WP:DUE). I would not recommend continuing editing the draft here since Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought, I would however recommend expanding some of our already existing articles with reliably sourced material. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism help

If there is a high level of IP vandalism on a page over the last few hours, is that enough to request page protection (it might only need to be short term)? And if so, what's the fastest way to get the protection?

The page is Bridgeport, Connecticut, Centennial half dollar. Thanks! - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Whisperjanes, welcome to the Teahouse. I agree that the page can do with some semi-protection, as that will prevent IP editors from editing. There are two ways you can request protection:
  1. Put {{edit semi-protected}} on the article's talk page and state your reasons why it should be protected.
  2. Go to the WP:RPP board and state your case and proposed action.
Hope this helps! And thanks for linking to the article in question and signing. :) Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 06:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Tenryuu! And for future reference, does one of those ways usually get a faster response, from your experience, or are they pretty similar? - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Whisperjanes, I have not personally participated in getting a page protected so I'm afraid I can't tell you which method is faster. I know of these two solutions from checking out the source code from protected pages and the action that was provided in this archived Teahouse question. Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 06:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Whisperjanes, when it's just one user, it's better to leave warnings to their talk page, and report them at WP:AIV if they persist, or if vandalism is all they are doing and they are doing it so fast that it is urgent to damagecontrol, you can skip the talk page and report directly.
The fastest way would be to post to the talk page of an admin who is online; of course that won't be possible if you don't know many admins. In case AIV has a backlog and it is urgent, you can directly post to WP:AN asking that appropriate action be taken. If the issue isn't something that would be obvious to everybody, and might require discussion/explanations, WP:ANI would be preferred to AN. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, if blocking an editor, an IP or a range of IPs is likely to take care of the problem, Page protection is unwarranted. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Usedtobecool You know what I just realized? I think it's because it's Today's Featured Article. Is that common? I don't think blocking a range of IPs would take care of the problem in this case. But would requesting protection be too much, since it's a TFA? And thank you for all the helpful information so far! - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The IP has been blocked by @Oshwah:. Perhaps, they can help here. I am not sure about protection policy vis-a-vis TFA's. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Whisperjanes - Yes, vandalism made to the current featured article of the day is extremely common and occurs like clockwork for each article that makes it to the front page. The protection policy applies to this page just like it would any other page on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's protection policy spells these guidelines out in detail. While there are some admins who will out-right refuse to protect an article if it's currently today's featured article and is being featured on the main page. For the record, I'm not one of those admins. ;-) However, I note that there are admins (including myself) who try to keep the duration of any page protection applied to today's featured article to be as short of a length as possible (usually an hour or two). I understand their main argument that, by principle and as a website that we say "anyone can edit", we're showing new users and potential future editors that this isn't really the case when we protect the featured article on the main page. However, I also believe that we should do what's necessary in order to put a stop to repeated and high-rate disruption when it's found. You're of course always welcome to file a request to have a page protection by visiting this noticeboad and following the directions there; you're not doing any harm by doing so. If anything, it'll be helpful and bring the issue to the admins' attention. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for the help! I'm glad to understand more about the protection policy now c: I think the IP vandalism has gone down on that article considerably since that one IP was blocked, but I'll keep an eye out and report if it gets worse again. - Whisperjanes (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Another visual editing question

Can you add timelines using the visual editor? Also, is there a guide on how to do it on source? WDM10 (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

WDM10, maybe see WP:Timeline and the help page it links to while you wait for an answer? I don't know if that helps at all since I have never worked on one. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@WDM10: I've no idea about doing it in visual editor. In source editor though, if you have a particular type of timeline in mind that you have seen in an existing article, the easiest thing to do is edit that article, copy the code used to make the timeline to your article, then modify the copied code to reflect your data.
Thanks for guiding me to that. WDM10 (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
If you don't have a particular article in mind, there are apparently several types of timeline listed at WP:Timeline. If you click on one of the links to a template, like {{Graphical timeline}}, and then click on "What links here" on the left sidebar, then in the "Filters" pane, click "Hide links" and "Hide redirects" (so "Show transclusions" is the only "Show" remaining), you get a list of the articles that "transclude" (use) the template, e.g., Cambrian. I hope this makes sense. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for guiding me to that. WDM10 (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF): another visual editor question, where the answer is likely no, but not many who can give it definitively. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Usedtobecool. You can't insert a new timeline, but if a timeline is already on the page, then you can edit the content (a very basic editor – a basic box with the codes in it). You can also open an article that has a timeline in it in the visual editor, copy that one, and paste it into the visual editor in a new article. I've requested that they add support at phab:T247766. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

How to cite more than one author in a book?

Hey eveyrone,

Just wanna ask, when filling in the book citation, how can I add more than one author when it only provides one tab on first and last names of author? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkdelta (talk • contribs) 11:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinkdelta, at the bottom, there should be a button to add additional information. When you click on it, it should provide additional parameters. Either choose from the list, or type in. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
If you edit with wikitext, and use the reftoolbar described at Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Using_refToolbar, there's a green+ button for adding more authors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

1:1 translation from German Wikipedia rejected in the English space – why?


It would be nice if someone could give me a few tips about what I did wrong - and how I can do better in the future: Unfortunately I can not quite understand why this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ContiTech) article was rejected. Can anyone tell me specifically where something does not fit? It is a 1:1 translation from the German Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ContiTech), has been online there for 14 years and has since then been checked by several administrators and adapted again and again by numerous participants (https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ContiTech&offset=&limit=500&action=history). And I think that it’s written from a neutral point of view, and that it refers to a wide range of independent, reliable, published sources.

Greats Stefan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefankohl (talk • contribs) 11:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Stefankohl Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that the German Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia, with its own editors, policies, and practices, and what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The draft seems largely sourced to press release type articles, the company itself, and other primary sources, which do not establish that this company meets our special definition of a notable company(please review). The draft just tells about the company and what it considers to be its history; Wikipedia (this one) is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about subjects like companies. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Le Grand Mag article

Hi everyone! Can someone please help me understand why my draft was rejected? I provided sources to support my article, but I got the feedback that "this submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources", can someone help me? Luxury yogi (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Luxury yogi, welcome to the Teahouse. Taking a look at the deletion logs tells me that your draft has been deleted speedily two times (one recently and the other over a year ago) for the same reason: unambiguous advertising or promotion. This suggests that you should:
  • rework the article's prose to have it be much more neutral in tone
  • find sources that talk about your subject, but are not connected to them (e.g., not social media sites, company websites, etc.) Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 14:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Luxury yogi, I hope you are well. According to the logs, your draft was deleted today for being "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Since it has been deleted, I cannot see the draft so I cannot say specifically what was wrong with yours that led to its deletion. However, Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view and not in a way which advertises or promotes their subject - the two admins who have deleted your draft believe that yours was too promotional. While having sources in your article is important, this alone is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article and will not save it from rejection if it is written like a promotion. I would also note that the type of sources you include in an article is important. You should use multiple sources which are reliable and independent of the subject and offer significant coverage of the topic. As I said, I cannot see the deleted version of your article so I don't know exactly what sources you used on the article (an admin might be able to help here); however, that might also help to explain why your draft was rejected and then deleted. Let us know if you have any further questions. WJ94 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Would this article on Robb Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robb_Report be a good example to follow in terms of neutrality and references? Because I would say Le Grand Mag is to luxury lifestyle as Vogue is to fashion. Thank you so much! Luxury yogi (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Imho, Robb Report is another candidate for deletion. These are glossy magazines filled with advertisements for luxury products. Creators of the products pay for the articles/advertisements, the magazines are distributed free to wealthy people, and no-one actually reads them. Consequently no-one writes about them either, and they are not notable as Wikipedia uses that word. Maproom (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit Sidebar Links on Work Wiki

Hello! I'm trying to learn some Wikipedia edit, as my workplace uses a private Wiki to manage code documentation. In this wiki, we have a sidebar with headings akin to the ones displayed on an open Wiki (i.e. Interaction and Tools). However, the links under those headings are outdated. I've been looking through the archives, and have gone in to edit various pages, but have seen no means with which to edit the sidebar links. If there does exist a reference article, or if someone can point me in the right direction, that would be very kind. Urodele (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Urodele, have you looked at mw:Manual:Interface/Sidebar. If it isn't on there, you might have more luck asking at mw:Project:Support desk - there are only 11 local editors that can edit the interface. ~~ QRA: Alex Noble - talk 15:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Alex Noble, that looks like exactly what I want! I'll be sure to read it more thoroughly and test it out, then otherwise head to the support desk. Thanks for your help. Urodele (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
We only have 11 Wikipedia:Interface administrators who can edit sitewide JavaScript and CSS pages. But most pages in the MediaWiki namespace can be edited by all 1144 normal administrators. This includes MediaWiki:Sidebar and pages defining terms there like MediaWiki:Currentevents-url and MediaWiki:Currentevents. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
PrimeHunter Thank you for information!Urodele (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


I was under the impression that when i wrote an article, it would start as a draft, but the first article that i wrote immeadietly got uploaded as if it was finished, which it was far from being, and it got deleted. How do i make drafts and not articles? Sbob99 (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sbob99, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's simple to create a draft; you just type "Draft:Foo" (where "Foo" is the draft name) in the search bar (in the top right part of the screen). Then, you can create it. Hope this helps, King of Scorpions 15:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Sbob99: Also see WP:REFUND if you want to request a copy of the deleted material. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Article doesn’t meet notability guidelines?

Hello, I’m new to Wikipedia editing, but I found this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inta_Omri on an extremely famous middle eastern song. After having read the notability guidelines, I strongly believe it is notable enough to warrant its own article, but the article itself is severely lacking. There is a warning type thing on top of the article that says “The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music.” How can I help show that the music is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erythrochroism (talk • contribs) 15:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Erythrochroism, welcome to Wikipedia! If you want to show that the song is notable enough, you could add independent and reliable sources to the article. You can remove the notice once the sources have been added, as the issue has then been addressed. --MrClog (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
This may seem like a silly question, but do the sources have to be referenced in the information in the article, meaning cited to support some information, or can I add them at the bottom just to establish notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erythrochroism (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I would advise you to use them to support existing information or to support new information. --MrClog (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Erythrochroism, ideally the references should be cited at the sentences of the content they support. The software will generate a reference list when {{reflist}} is used. Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 17:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Natasha Moraga

Hi... the article Natasha Moraga still is tagged for tone. I have worked on it and asked on the talk page if anything else needs to be done but it seems to be forgotten. Can anyone take a quick look? --HicksW (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

HicksW, welcome to the Teahouse. Taking a quick glance at it I can see parts of it which are peacocking a little. I'll give it a closer look in a bit. Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 16:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu thank you--HicksW (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@HicksW: I did a complete edit of the article. Some stuff I've deleted as it didn't serve any purpose besides praising her, and others I've enclosed in comments due to their size and could be re-included in the article if they can be made more neutral.
Shameless plug: If you ever have questions or would like feedback from other editors who do the same thing I do, please drop by the requests page of the Guild of Copyeditors and someone can help take a look at your article and edit it accordingly. --Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 17:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse Archive

Should there be a searchbox to the Teahouse Archive? T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

T3g5JZ50GLq, in what way? There is one on the main page, see file:20200316_search_archive.png ~~ QRA: Alex Noble - talk 17:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
There is also one on the top right of this page --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) ???? 03:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Did not see it, it is below a very long list, could it be more useful to put it above the long list?T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Zagg Wikipedia Page

I'm working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagg . For the past few months, this page has had the flag that it's written like an advertisement. I removed content that I thought would trigger this warning and then updated all of the outdated information I found on the page. I also removed sources that weren't credible with better sources I was able to find on the web.

Could someone take a look and let me know if there's any additional action I should take to get that removed? I'm still trying to figure out this whole wikipedia editing thing!

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NB1995 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello NB1995, you should not be directly editing the article. As per the WP:PAID editing policy, you need to declare your employer and client on your userpage and use WP:Edit requests to make changes to the article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Making a family tree on Wikipedia

Hi guys, I am trying to construct a family tree on Wikipedia but so far I have had no success. I used the templates given on this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Family_trees but none seem to be working so far. Whenever i input data it is collapsed on the page itself. I tried using the added parameters but nothing seems to be working. E.g. for the Ahnentafel template their is the |collapsed=no to {{ahnentafel}} parameter. Are there any how to do videos, or step by step instructions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanyRouge (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi EthanyRouge, welcome to the Teahouse. There are only the template documentation pages you may have seen like Template:Ahnentafel and Template:Tree chart. Editors often look for working code in an existing article and adapt it for their purpose. If you save your code at the "Sandbox" link at top of any page then we can see what is wrong. If you have only tried [10] then I'm afraid it's too confused to guess what you are trying to do. VisualEditor seems poorly suited for this. Try the source editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverting an edit based on POV

What should be my action, if an editor reverts my edit which had WP:RS citation with her/his own generalized phrases based on his POV which doesn't improve the section in the article much? TIA. Santoshdts (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Santoshdts: Start a discussion on the article's talk page. Don't start a edit war. See WP:BRD. RudolfRed (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
RudolfRed Thanks for reply, currently in discussion stage. I hope some better content emerge. Santoshdts (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Was the main page of Wikipedia ever vandalized by administrators?

Has this happened before?   ApChrKey   Talk 21:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@ApChrKey: No. Then again, why would trusted editors vandalize? LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 21:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@LPS and MLP Fan: But what if they slowly work to gain support and then vandalise the main page?   ApChrKey   Talk 21:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@ApChrKey: I don’t think so. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me or another host. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 21:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
See also WP:DDMP. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@LPS and MLP Fan: I hope this question doesn't permanently end my chances of becoming an administrator.   ApChrKey   Talk 21:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Don’t worry; you are fine as long as you make helpful edits to the encyclopedia. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 21:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
LPS and MLP Fan, if you don't know the answer to a question leave it for someone else to answer, don't just make things up. To give the actual answer, yes, it's happened surprisingly often, particularly in the early days of Wikipedia, although in more recent instances it's tended to be the result of admin accounts having their passwords compromised rather than the more traditional "admin flouncing out after an argument". (This is one of the primary reasons we now enforce strong passwords.) It hasn't happened for almost a year; the last instance was on 24 March 2019. We've also surprisingly often had admins accidentally cut-and-paste material onto the Main Page when it was intended for somewhere else, such as here, while Maxim managed to accidentally delete the main page altogether once. ‑ Iridescent 21:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Another question... Why are some vandalism edits deleted from the page history of a page? They are grey and cannot be viewed.   ApChrKey   Talk 22:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@ApChrKey: See Wikipedia:Revision deletion. It doesn't have to be due to vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
As the policy on redaction (revision deletion) explains, there are several reasons for it, that include some copyright violations and some BLP violations. Vandalism is not usually redacted in this fashion unless it is considered to be "purely disruptive", which is something of a judgment call. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia citation bot....?

Hello Wikipedians, Would you please provide with example usage of the citation bot via the webpage link below? https://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Citation_bot/use I have tried it, but faced with THE error message and no result. If you kindly answer my inquiry, Please add my ID Goodtiming8871 in your reply and I can see notification via email Kind Regards, Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Greetings @Goodtiming8871:. Note: I am not an experienced editor. I used the citation bot on a single page. This is a link to the diff. You can see in the diff that, for this page at this time, it only normalized letter casing of isbn. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Backpacking_(hiking)&curid=854046&diff=945942998&oldid=943718539&diffmode=source —¿philoserf? (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Directory

I notice this list has not been updated since February 20. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/All) Is that normal? I ask because I am waking up a WikiProject and care that the information about it is correct. I also noticed that this possibly related page hasn't been updated in 4 years while the bot’s page says it is still active. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Backpacking) —¿philoserf? (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Philoserf, the /All page, according to its history, is updated as often as a week but also has periods when it was not updated for much longer than a month. It was not updated between August and December last year. The Backpacking page was moved before it stopped being updated. I am guessing it didn't work as well after the move as it did during testing but nobody cared enough to want it fixed. The best person to answer both questions would be the bot operator who doesn't seem to be very active on the project. So, perhaps email them if you really need to know. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Usedtobecool. I wonder what I am seeing in history of the /All page then? 10:13, 20 February 2020‎ Reports bot talk contribs‎ 378,192 bytes +119‎ Updating undo. I wasn't aware the Wikipedia:WikiProject Backpacking page had been moved. It had to have been before 2/20/202. I will look at that history too. —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Philoserf, what I meant was, though it's true that the /All page seems to be updated weekly in general, this gap of one month (20 Feb. to today) isn't without precedent either, since there was a gap of four months last year. I didn't mean to say the wikiproject had been moved, I meant Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Backpacking had. It has one update when it was still in the bot's userspace and no updates since it was launched; so my guess is something went wrong with the launch but there was no one to note the problem or want it fixed. Sorry for the confusion. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Now I grok Usedtobecool. The bot operator is off wikipedia at the moment. I will relax knowing it might not bee something I haven't done right as I revive the project. Thank you very much. —¿philoserf? (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Contacting an editor who edited my draft

A simpler link: Draft:Etymology of Chicago (added by CiaPan (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC))

Hello... How can I find the contact info for the person(s) who edited my draft, so I can contact them and discuss their review. Thanks Carl J. Weber (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Carl J. Weber. What you can do is go to the drafts page and near the top you should see a "View history" tab. This is the page's history and if you click on you be able to see a record of every person/account who edited the draft. All you will need to do is find the person you want to contact and then click on their user name. This will take you to their user page, and all you need to do then is go to their user talk page (look for the "Talk" tab) and then post your message. Finally, I noticed something the last time you posted at the Teahouse that seems to have happened once again. When you want to start a completely new discussion at the Teahouse or on any other talk page, the easiest thing to do is to scroll to the very top of the page and click on "New section" (since the Teahouse is for geared towards new editors, there's also a big blue button at the top that says "Click here to ask a question" that does the same things). When you click on "New section" a new window will open and you can post your comment. Make sure to try and add a "Subject/headline" and then click "Publish changes" when you're rading to post. This will ensure that the thread is put in the correct place on the talk page, etc. It kind of looks like you're either clicking "Edit" at the top of the page or scrooling down to the very last thread on the bottom of the page and clicking "Edit" for that thread. You can do those things if you like, but you then will have to make sure you properly format you post, add a headline/heading, etc. because the software will not do it for you. If, on the other hand, you want to add a new comment to an already existing discussion thread, then you shouldn't click "New section", but rather just the "Edit" button for the particular thread and then add your comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Help - In reference 13

{{Tl|cite web|url=http://sbcihq.in/d-p-burma-memorial-lecture-award/D. P. BURMA MEMORIAL LECTURE AWARD

I am trying to create this link, but why this - cite web/url is visible in reference.

Shruti Malaker (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Shruti Malaker, You didn't close the template at the end with the }}. Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 05:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Shruti Malaker. You can found out more about the formatting of the "cite web" template at Template:Cite web, but it looks like you're leaving out some important parameters and that's what's causing the url to be displayed in the citation.One of the more basic formats of a "cite web" template looks like this: <ref>{{cite web|last=|first=|url=|title=|date=|website=|access-date=}}</ref>. You should try and fill as many of these parameters as you can for the citation to be displayed properly.What you've formatted above looks like

<ref>{{cite web|last=|first=|url=ttp://sbcihq.in/d-p-burma-memorial-lecture-award/D. P. BURMA MEMORIAL LECTURE AWARD|title=|date=|website=|access-date=}}</ref>

and that's leaving some important paramters empty. In particular, you seemed to have unintentionally combined the "url" paramter and "title" paramters together so that no "title" is being displayed in the citation. So, try formating the template like

<ref>{{cite web|last=|first=|url=http://sbcihq.in/d-p-burma-memorial-lecture-award/|title=D. P. Burma Memorial Lecture Award|date=|website=|access-date=}]</ref>

and see if that resolves the problem you're having. The meanings of the other paramters like "last" and "access-date" are explained on the template's documetation page; you're not required to use them all, but generally the more you can complete the better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
P. BURMA MEMORIAL LECTURE AWARD http://sbcihq.in/d-p-burma-memorial-lecture-award/D. P. BURMA MEMORIAL LECTURE AWARD Check |url= value (help). Missing or empty |title= (help)I put code }} in the last but now it is showing as - value (help). Missing or empty |title= (help)Shruti Malaker (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Shruti Malaker: Put D. P. BURMA MEMORIAL LECTURE AWARD Check after the parameter |title=.
Please don't make a new section to reply; edit under your question heading so that we can keep everything in the same section. --Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 06:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Help - In reference 13


I did so many changes, but unable to do it.

http://sbcihq.in/d-p-burma-memorial-lecture-award. Missing or empty |title= (help)

Shruti Malaker (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ http://sbcihq.in/d-p-burma-memorial-lecture-award. Missing or empty |title=
Hello Shruti Malaker, I have fixed it for you. If you are having trouble getting the hang of it, there should be a "cite" button at the top of the editing window. You can use that one. For most cases, you can simply choose automatic, provide the url and it will make the citation for you. In some cases when it fails, you can go to the "manual" tab and fill in the details. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Help - In reference 13

http://sbcihq.in/d-p-burma-memorial-lecture-award. Missing or empty |title= (help)

Thanks for your modification in reference 13. But the problem is still there.

Shruti Malaker (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Shruti Ji, please stop creating a new discussion every time you reply. Instead, please find the thread of the continuing discussion to reply. I am not seeing the error. Please refresh the article and if it persists, provide further details as to where and when you are seeing the error message. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Question by Phatman2045

how to edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatman2045 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and welcome to the Teahouse, Phatman2045! To get started editing, I suggest looking over Help:Introduction to get an understanding for how to edit. I'm also going to leave you a message on your talk page with some more information about Wikipedia that might be helpful for you. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask away! OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Help with archiving sources

Hello! I use a lot of different news articles in my edits and would like to get some help where I can find proper guidelines regarding archiving sources. Other editors have been adding archives to some of my sources and it feels like it could be helpful for me if I could do that myself also. Would really appreciate if someone could give me some guidelines regarding this matter! Thank you in advance :) Zandor (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

DariuZzandor, see Help:Archiving a source, and/or give User:IABot a try. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Usedtobecool Perfect, thank you very much, will check them out! Zandor (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer reviewing articles

How long does an article usually take to get peer reviewed? I'm fairly new to the process as I listed an article of mine just over a month ago and it hasn't gained any traction. WDM10 (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

WDM10 It can take many weeks, sometimes months, as we're all volunteers here, doing what we can when we can. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. WDM10 (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
You do not need to wait for a review, the Articles for Creation process is not mandatory. If you think the article is sufficiently well sourced you are free to move the article yourself to mainspace. However, I believe the source you are using is a self-published source, I would recommend removing it and using a reliable source instead. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Þjarkur: Thanks for your response. Which article are you referring to? WDM10 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The first one I saw was Draft:Australia vs England in rugby league, which is based on RugbyLeagueProject.com, a self-published source by some fans. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Þjarkur: Thanks for the clarification. I also made reference to the 2019 Rugby League annual, wouldn't that be considered a reliable source or do I need more? WDM10 (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
That's a good source, if you can remove all the citations to RugbyLeagueProject and use official sources instead then that's preferable. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Þjarkur: Thanks for your help. By the way, the article I was initially referring to was List of Rugby League World Cup hat-tricks. WDM10 (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Also rugbyleagueproject.org seems to be the official statistics provider for Welsh rugby league, if that changes anything. WDM10 (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I completely misunderstood your original post...  I just assumed you were referring to AfC reviews since I saw you were submitting some drafts, but you were referring to actual peer reviews. Yes as 331dot says, it's fairly random and just depends on someone interested finding it. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Þjarkur: Thanks anyway for your help. WDM10 (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

How to get permission to translate and link protected articles

I have translated a protected article but I can't link the newly translated page with the original one. How do I get permission to do that? Kidus (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Kidus, I don't understand what you are asking. Interlanguage links are usually handled in Wikidata, and as far as I know there's no question of permissions there. Please explain exactly what you are trying to do, and what happens when you try. --ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I translated this article (which is a protected article) into this. But the language link wasn't automatically added (as it is for non-protected articles). When I try to manually link it, I get an error saying I do not have the necessary permissions to do so. Sorry if this is not the place to ask this. Kidus (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
T'ena Yest'illiñ, Kidus. You'll have to ask at am-wiki: this is nothing to do with en-wiki. I very much doubt that it's anything to do with the article being protected here, but I may be wrong. As far as I can see, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is already linked to am:2019-20 ኮሮናቫይረስ ወረርሽኝ, via d:Q81068910. --ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Amesegnalehu (Thanks), ColinFine :) It seems resolved now. And yes it is because the article is protected because I've had issues like this before. But I'll check at am-wiki in the future. Kidus (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Strikethrough in edit history

I removed an unnecessary merge propsal tag on 3 articles. One article shows this removal as a strikethrough in the article's edit history. What does this mean? You can't even see the edit, although the edit was fine, and the tag was removed. The edit occurs in the other 2 articles. There was a merge tag before my edit, and no merge tag after my edit, so what's this about that my edit doesn't show as a regular edit with diff? There was copyrighted text removed, but my edit was not to copytighted text, and my edit staye, and it should be in the history.

21:09, 28 April 2019 diff hist  -79‎  Remote sensing ‎ no rationale or discussion attempted

This is the edit. Thanks, Farm lenses (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to Wikipedia! Your revision (the page after your edit) contained copyrighted text, even though you weren't the person that added the text. To protect against copyright claims, all revisions that include copyrighted texts are deleted. This is not a warning or whatever to you, just some maintenance. As you can see, all revisions with the text were deleted, until the edit by Kees08, which is the first revision since the addition of the copyrighted material that no longer includes the text. --MrClog (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I understand the copyrighted text, but my revision was done. I removed the merge tag, and the merge tag stayed removed. My revision did not deal with the copyrighted text. All that's done hy hiding my revision as if it hadn't been made is hiding the history of an actual edit. This is my concern, that an actual accepted edit is hidden. Farm lenses (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
There are multiple edits not attached to their editor in the history. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Remote_sensing&type=revision&diff=928435760&oldid=868174959 Farm lenses (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Farm lenses:, all versions of the page that contain copyrighted text will be hidden when revision-deletion is done. This means all edits, good or bad, to versions of the page that already included copyrighted material will be hidden. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Farm lenses: The whole page at the time is displayed below a diff, e.g. in [11]. There is no system to examine whether the diff itself could be displayed without revealing information which should be hidden. Such a system would be complicated and require a lot of work for the editors who make revision deletion, like carefully checking every diff during the time. A diff can be made to any edit and a diff to a blank page would always show everything so a hypothetical system would also have to only permit a diff to the previous revision. But history merges and other events can change the previous revision, and changes to the diff software can cause diffs to display different content, so the diff would have to be "frozen" when an editor has checked it. A lot of work with a lot of room for errors where hidden content leaks out. By the way, I recommend always saying in the edit summary when you add or remove tags, e.g. Remove {{merge to|Remote sensing|date=October 2018}}, no rationale or discussion attempted. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Useful advice on the edit histories. Why didn't they just remove the copyrighted material? Edit histories matter, and it seems bad form to keep unattributed edits. It's like plagiarizing, you know.Farm lenses (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The edits are still properly attributed so to speak, they’re just hidden from public view for some reason like WP:OVERSIGHT or WP:REVDEL and can still be viewed by administrators for the most (unless they were really really serious policy violations). The same thing happens with respect to deleted pages; they’re not necessarily gone forever, but rather only hidden from public view and can be viewed by administrators. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Edits accepted into articles are not the same as deleted articles, and visible only to administrators doesn't make them attributed. ("Yes, I used her work in my thesis, but I attributed it in my head." "I copied large parts of an older book and told my publisher who removed the attributions, so that's okay.") Wikipedia isn't written for administrators. I see what you're doing now; it's not justifiable; these are unattributrd edits. My question had been answered, as bad as the answer is. Farm lenses (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Farm lenses: Trying to remove the copyrighted material from every version while still displaying the rest of the version and a diff would be even more work with more room for content to leak out. As an administrator I can see that some of the intervening edits were modifying the copyrighted material so those diffs would have to be hidden. Some edits may have changed both allowed and disallowed parts of the article but I haven't checked all edits in the period. I don't know the legal status of the issue but I have never heard an editor complain that the specifics of their edit was not visible after a revision deletion for other reasons. You can still see their username in the page history and a total diff for all changes [12] until the copyrighted material was removed. If they gave a good edit summary then you may also be able to guess which change they made. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

an edit attributed to me, I didn't do?

I went to the site to look for pummelo, and got a notice that there was a message for me. Huh? I have never "inputted" a thing to Wikipedian I simply don't have knowledge worth posting there. <G> Then, when I clicked on this "message", I was told that and edit the bot figured came from me was taken down. Then, there was an actual "warning", with a long number behind it. What?!? It was supposed to be about Queen, Lambert, as I recall. I hear of this subject for the very first time when reading the warning message. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You will see that the message is from 2017. At the foot of your user talk page it should be displaying the message in MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext, explaining that yours is an IP address which may be shared. The contributions from that IP address are shown at Special:Contributions/ To avoid seeing messages which may not relate to your own edits it is wise to create an account. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:, hi! I see the edit; it was made in 2017. When you're editing without being logged in, your edits are logged under your IP address; ISPs sometimes recycle these and give them to new people, and you'll have a different one when you use a different computer, say. If you don't wish to edit Wikipedia, you don't need to worry as long as you aren't actually making the edits, though you can avoid them by creating an account, which has other benefits. It's also recommended if you decide you would like to edit—it doesn't have to be about having knowledge that's not on here, as there are lots of ways to contribute. See the tutorial for more on that. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

How to see contributions of blocked user?

I was wondering what contributions this user made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NEOWIZ_Global

but i cannot find a way to view it, unlike if i try to view contributions for most users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disoff (talk • contribs) 14:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Disoff The editor may have not made any edits to existing articles. All of their edits may have been to pages that were deleted as spam. This sometimes happens with blocked editors. McClenon mobile (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Central Auth is a useful tool for this because it has administrator access on all projects as far as edit counting is concerned. This user has only made one edit on the English Wikipedia and it was deleted. That doesn't let you see the edit, but it does tell you there was something there. GMGtalk 14:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Disoff. Edits to pages which were later deleted are not shown in contributions. They can be seen by administrators. The user only made an edit to NEOWIZ and was blocked for their username. See User talk:NEOWIZ Global and Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional names. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding redirect

Hello! I hope this is an appropriate question. I haven't been able to find a very straightforward answer elsewhere, although I must admit I haven't been searching very thoroughly. I am interested in creating something to add a redirect note to what currently comes up when one types in a certain acronym to another article of an organization with the same acronym. First, am I allowed to do this? My account isn't very old, and I've only done 10 edits. Second, is this possible? I can give more detail if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TariffedSparrow (talk • contribs) 16:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can do this. You might let us know what the redirected term might be, and whether you are connected to the organization in question. The basics on redirects are at WP:REDIRECT.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi TariffedSparrow . Please always be specific in questions. There are many possible circumstances. What is the acronym and which article do you want readers to find? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The acronym is "PWSA". I'm hoping for readers to find Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, as it currently automatically redirects to a different organization. I am not affiliated with either organization. Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TariffedSparrow (talk • contribs) 16:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I see that PWSA and pwsa gives different results. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@TariffedSparrow: PWSA already redirected to Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority and has done so for nine years. I guess you mean pwsa which redirected to Pregnant Women Support Act. I have changed it to also redirect to Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority (which gets more traffic) and added a {{redirect}} hatnote at top with a link to the other article. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TariffedSparrow (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Category discussion appeals?

I know there are deletion discussion appeals (I don't remember the correct term, though). Is there anything similar for category discussions? I'm a bit worried because a category discussion was closed in what I thought was early, when some concerning points still hadn't been addressed and there didn't seem to be consensus yet. And the subsequent changes seemed to mess a lot with art subcategories on Wikipedia (articles of which I tend to edit on Wikipedia).

I personally don't know enough about making categories on Wikipedia, but I see a large gap in ways to categorize non-visual fine art, and I'm concerned about it. I'm not really sure where to go next -- It seems like it would be rude and probably against guidelines to just open a category discussion about the same sub-categories that were already discussed, but I do think some larger discussion needs to take place. So I'm unsure what to do or where to go for that.

Just for more context, I already talked to the closing admin. And the discussion is archived here. I didn't want to make this message too long so I left out some details, but if I need to clarify anything, please feel free to ask. Whisperjanes (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Whisperjanes. In general, you can follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for any discussion that's formally closed, but in some cases that might not be necessary if it was a simple an article talk page discussion, etc. WP:CFD is like any other WP:XFD discussion in that it most likely was formally closed in someway; so, the first thing to do would probably to query the editor who closed the discussion like you seem to have done and explain whatever concerns you may have. If that resolves things, then great; if not, then there are other steps you can take to seek wider input on a close. Now if you decide to take things to the next level, you should be careful as to how you phrase things and stick to explaining how you feel the close was not in accordance with relevant policies or guidelines in someway. Try to remain civil because you start taking shots at individual editors and turn the discussion into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, there's a greater chance that others will start firing back at you regardless of whether you're in the right. In other words, if you try to hard too WP:WIN, the chance of you losing not only the battle itself, but perhaps also the war increase. Try to think big picture in that the way you interact with others may leave an impression that will remain with them long after this particular discussion has ended. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Information to discuss!

Hello Mates,

I have experience from multiple industries...

Several projects and points needs a lot of information to be added and they are extremely legitimate, and would love to contribute...

But i am very weak in creating contents so please some one help if possible, or teach me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholaschoksi (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Nicholaschoksi, welcome to the Teahouse. If you want an interactive way to learn how to use Wikipedia, you may want to try out The Wikipedia Adventure first. It will show you the basics of how an article should be structured and how to collaborate with other editors. Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 17:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The blue links that editors added to your Talk page provide guidance. David notMD (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Copy & paste to new article vs. moving a draft to a new article?

I've normally moved drafts to new articles or have gone through the AfC review process. Since I am able to post an article to the main space I am likely to do it that way. I've read recently (somewhere ?) that drafts should be copied and pasted into new articles. Since I have a tendency to do many edits and modifications to an article before I am finally satisfied with it - I was curious to know if this is an accepted method or if it is not recommended. I guess my thoughts are that my somewhat drawn out process of creation really would be of no interest - just the end results... Any thoughts please. Also, if that is okay to do that in that manner how do you delete a draft? Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't copy and paste the draft, LorriBrown, as that will result in loss of the edit history (which is particularly important if anyone else has edited the draft, as that attribution needs to be maintained). The solution is to move the draft to mainspace - see HELP:MOVE. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi LorriBrown. If there are other significant contributors to the draft or the article is not created by the draft author then the draft must be moved to preserve the page history which credits the authors as required by our license. If you are the sole contributor then you are allowed to copy-paste it per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed. It's your choice. I don't know a guideline with a preference. You can request deletion of a draft in your own userspace with {{db-u1}}, or you can redirect the draft to the article. You can also reuse the draft page for other purposes. This is common for userspace drafts created in "sandbox" page names. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Cordless Larry and PrimeHunter. Yes, of course I've been the only editor. It makes sense you wouldn't want to do that unless you were the only editor - which I have been but did not disclose that in my question... sorry.LorriBrown (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@LorriBrown: Even where a copy-paste move is possible, IMHO, it might still be better to "move" the draft just so others can see that you didn't simply create the article in the mainspace in one massive editing session but actually had been working on it in stages for some time. There's nothing wrong with creating articles in the mainspace; sometimes when a empty page suddenly becomes a fully created article, however, the intermediate steps it took to get to that state are not readily apparent unless you actually attributed the draft/userspace draft you were working on in the edit summary you leave when creating the article. A page move is a fairly easy thing to do as long as there are no technical restrictions (e.g. a page with the same name already existing) which require administrator assistance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Citation difficulties


I'm a citation-newbie who likes a specific style of citation, but I don't know how to use it in certain cases.

Let me specify: I added a citation on suffragettes in British Union of Fascists (The first in the paragraph, currently it's [22]) and everything worked rosely.

Now I'm trying to add one to Blockade of Germany, but it doesn't work. What I did was:

  • Added this in text:
    • In March 1919 Winston Churchill told the House of Commons: "We are holding all our means of coercion in full operation or in immediate readiness for use. We are enforcing the blockade with vigor. We have strong armies ready to advance at the shortest notice. Germany is very near starvation. The evidence I have received from the officers sent by the War Office all over Germany shows first of all, the great privations which the German people are suffering, and secondly, the great danger of a collapse of the entire structure of German social and national life under the pressure of hunger and malnutrition. Now is therefore the moment to settle."[1]
  • Added this under ==References==
  • Added this under ==Further reading==
  • Fuller, J.F.C. (1993). The Second World War, 1939-45 A Strategical And Tactical History. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0306805066.

It seems to work here but it doesn't work there. I would be very grateful if anyone corrects me.Kuiet (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b Fuller 1993: "As regards the second point, it should be remembered what Mr. Winston Churchill said in the House of Commons on 3rd March, 1919-namely: 'We are holding all our means of coercion in full operation or in immediate readiness for use. We are enforcing the blockade with vigor. We have strong armies ready to advance at the shortest notice. Germany is very near starvation. The evidence I have received from the officers sent by the War Office all over Germany shows first of all, the great privations which the German people are suffering, and secondly, the great danger of a collapse of the entire structure of German social and national life under the pressure of hunger and malnutrition. Now is therefore the moment to settle.'" p. 19
Welcome to the Teahouse, Kuiet. I would put the full reference in the body of the text (not under References or Further Reading) and use the {{Cite book}} template to do so. Are you trying to have your explanatory footnote and citation share the same footnote? --Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 18:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Kuiet, first of all, please note WP:CITEVAR may apply when you try to introduce citations to an article after your own preferences. Also, "Further reading" is generally for listing sources that are not used to build the article but may be useful to the reader as further reading material on the subject. For accommodating short footnotes, I think some combination of notes/references, references/works, references/bibliographies, etc. are used. With that out of the way, I think, in this specific example, technically, this should work (practically, you may need to seek consensus before implementing into an article that doesn't already use the style):

Body.<ref name="Fuller 1993">{{harvnb|Fuller|1993|p=19}}: "As regards the second point, it should be remembered what Mr. Winston Churchill said in the House of Commons on 3rd March, 1919-namely: 'We are holding all our means of coercion in full operation or in immediate readiness for use. We are enforcing the blockade with vigor. We have strong armies ready to advance at the shortest notice. Germany is very near starvation. The evidence I have received from the officers sent by the War Office all over Germany shows first of all, the great privations which the German people are suffering, and secondly, the great danger of a collapse of the entire structure of German social and national life under the pressure of hunger and malnutrition. Now is therefore the moment to settle.'"</ref>




*{{cite book |last1=Fuller |first1=J.F.C. |date=1993 |title=The Second World War, 1939-45 A Strategical And Tactical History |publisher=Da Capo Press |isbn=978-0306805066 | ref=harv}}

should render as



  1. ^ Fuller 1993, p. 19: "As regards the second point, it should be remembered what Mr. Winston Churchill said in the House of Commons on 3rd March, 1919-namely: 'We are holding all our means of coercion in full operation or in immediate readiness for use. We are enforcing the blockade with vigor. We have strong armies ready to advance at the shortest notice. Germany is very near starvation. The evidence I have received from the officers sent by the War Office all over Germany shows first of all, the great privations which the German people are suffering, and secondly, the great danger of a collapse of the entire structure of German social and national life under the pressure of hunger and malnutrition. Now is therefore the moment to settle.'"


  • Fuller, J.F.C. (1993). The Second World War, 1939-45 A Strategical And Tactical History. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0306805066.

Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thank you kindly for your help, could I further impose on you to look concretely at the page Blockade of Germany to show me how exactly to implement your proposal? What I'm trying to do is to have the reference show the full quote from page 19, but also a "reference" (I'm not sure if my terminology here is correct) to the full details of the book as given under Further reading. The same thing I did in suffragettes. And could you also tell me why what I initially tried to do (as described in the first post) works here but not there? (There I'm given the "not defined error". I hope I'm not overusing your willingness to help. Thank you in advance, Kuiet (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kuiet:, it appears I misspoke somewhat. I've never used that parameter before, but it appears the {{cite}} series has a |quote= parameter that you can append quotes to, so that they can go with the citation without using a secondary template.
Before I go any further, are you using the Visual Editor or the Source Editor?--Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 12:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't notice your post. I'm using Source Editor.Kuiet (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Kuiet, Looks like Usedtobecool has addressed your question already. Let us know if you have any more questions. :) --Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 22:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Thank you too most kindly for your exhaustive reply, the 'CITEVAR' warning and the 'nowiki' hack. But could I implore you to check Blockade of Germany to teach me how to proceed in this concrete example? Because there already is something under ==references== but it's not a reflist, so I'm not sure how to proceed. And if you could also tell me why my attempt at citation worked here, but gave me the "not defined error" in the original article. I hope I'm not overimposing in my plea for assistance. Thank you in advance, Kuiet (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kuiet: it's no trouble at all; you are free to ask as many followups as need be, I have no problem being called to help in the article itself. However, you have not edited Blockade of Germany; obviously, I can't help you fix an edit that's not been made. As to what you've given above, I wouldn't say it has worked here; it has generated two citations when the intention is clearly to make one. I have already provided what I think is the correct way to do it. It doesn't matter what is in the section titled "references", what matters is whether there is a section which has the reflist template which in this case is "Notes", so that's not an issue. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Huh, you're right, it didn't work here either. My apologies. So the suffragettes stand as the only working example. After editing the Blockade in Germany and hitting 'Show preview' I've noticed the error so I didn't dare publish it. But I'm doing so now, please look at it if you will.Kuiet (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Kuiet, I have edited your edit to match that of the fascists article. Is that what you intended? Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, @Usedtobecool: that's precisely what I wanted and now I see how to do it. Thank you ever so much for correcting me!Kuiet (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

incorrect link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_French_Open_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_Singles the link at the bottom of the page is to the 2012, not the 2013, singles draw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Blair H (talk • contribs) 18:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Scott Blair H, thanks for catching that. I've started a talk page. If you're looking for the history of the draft, you can click on "history" at the top of the page when on your draft.
Please click on "new section" at the top of the page so that your question gets its own heading and is not grouped in with the previous question. --Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 21:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Creating Articles

I have been looking for some time on how to create a wikipedia article. Could someone please provide me with the steps to do so. Much Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yacufan (talk • contribs) 22:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yacufan Hello! This article helped me a lot, Wikipedia:Article development. This can also be helpful when you decide to create one, Help:Your first article. Best regards, Zandor (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Yacufan Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I will caution you that successfully creating a new article is the hardest possible task to undertake on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. New users who dive right in to article creation without experience and understanding the process often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work is mercilessly edited and even deleted by others. I don't want you to have bad feelings; new users are much more successful when they first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is expected of new articles. If you do this, you will increase your chances of success.
However, if you still wish to attempt to create an article, you should read the pages suggested by DariuZzandor, and perhaps also use the new user tutorial. You may then go to Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor, so you get feedback on it before your draft is formally placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Young New Zealand Party

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Young New Zealand Party  --Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 01:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi how can I claim ownership of a brand organisation or act as a rep to ensure all the information is updated and correct? Page got reverted for vandalism but it is all very true so I don’t really understand?

Please let me know how I can put my edits back up.

Or how can I create a new page and delete the one shown?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Unfortunately it seems like your edits were reverted due to your edit being seen as promotion of the organisation, see the following, WP:PROMOTION. Edits on Wikipedia should not be written in a promotional manner, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Also, there is no general way, as I am aware of, to claim ownership in the way you mention. Everyone has the ability to edit on Wikipedia and as long as you have reliable sources that aren't directly written by the organisation in question, it is fine to use. The information should not be written in a promotional manner, though. Best, Zandor (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
If you are a representative of an organization, you must read and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies, and make the required declarations. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the response and it is not self promotion that is exactly what the organisation does holds people accountable that is a constitution obligation.

I believe the system has automatically done that but it hasn’t taken into consideration that that is exactly what we do. How can I get the edits back?

The update was professional direct and in no way promotion at all instead described exactly what the organisation does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:5A00:F82A:3B00:E990:30DC:27B7:8AC0 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP The simple answer is that you can’t do such a thing for the reasons given in Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Wikipedia articles aren’t owned by the subjects they’re written about or any one individual editor in particular. In addition, you might also want to read the following pages for reference as well: WP:42, WP:COI, WP:PAID, WP:NORG and WP:NOBLE. The gibberish-looking items in blue are actually short-cut links to various policy and guideline pages that you may find helpful. Please pay particular attention to WP:COI and WP:PAID because they are areas where you might run into problems if you’re not careful. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussions are not removed. An organization does not get to determine if there is information about it on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If you wish to assert that your organization does not meet the notability criteria for organizations, you could propose it for deletion by following the instructions at WP:AFD, but you must have an account to do that. If you did, you would still need to comply with the policies I mention above.. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The original question appears to be about Young New Zealand Party. The was a historical party. What was added - in a decidedly unencyclopaedic tone and without references - was content about a new organization going be the same name. This probably requires a separate article, submitted as a draft, rather than an addition to the old article. The deleted content is not lost - it can be seen and copied from at View history - but it should not be added back to the existing article. David notMD (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User:YoungNZParty is not an allowed User name, as editors are individuals, not organizations. Easiest to abandon that registered name and create a new one versus processing a name change. David notMD (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Why my page is declined

I want to know the reason that why my page is declined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbaazdurrani (talk • contribs) 00:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbaazdurrani Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason for the decline was given in the draft itself, at the top. The draft was sourced to little more than social media pages, which does not establish that the person meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. You can't use social media to do that, you need to use independent reliable sources. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I just submitted my first Wikipedia article and I was paid to write a biography about a prominent coin book author. I chose which sources to use and cite for information and to verify facts and other points covered in the bio, but I'm not sure how to disclose this as a financial COI. How may I do this as the post is considered by Wikipedia for publication? Thank you

This is the page I wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Highfill

Thank you so much for your time and help!

Joshmac81 Joshmac81 (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joshmac81. Thanks you for being open about your connection to the subject you're writing about. You should find the information you're looking for in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI. Please note that declaring you have a COI doesn't guarantee that the draft you're working on will be ultimately approved. For that to happen, you will still need to demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability or in this case Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Just going to add that with respect to Draft:John Highfill, you might want to look at Help:Your first article, Help:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Manual of Style and maybe even some of the biographes about similar individuals which might be found in Wikipedia:Featured articles for some general ideas/tips as to how Wikipedia articles are expected to be written and formatted. I've noticed a few formatting errors, etc. in your draft that you might want to clean up. None of these things are very major issues and will not affect whether the draft is ultimately approved, but this kind of copyediting/cleanup might actually help you understand a little bit more about how articles are expected to be written, which in turn may help notice and fix similar errors in other already existing articles if you decide to branch out a bit and do more than work on this draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hexaware Technologies Wiki Page Got Deleted

Hi Team,

I would like to contribute on Hexaware Technologies Wiki page but found that the page is deleted. help me to reinitiate the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isha2109 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Isha2109, the article was deleted via a deletion discussion, on WP:Notability grounds. If you think the discussion missed something and you can provide additional sources that the discussion might not have known of, you can start a WP:DRAFT and submit it via WP:AFC. Please note that such sources should help the subject pass the notability criteria for organisations, as outlined at WP:NORG. Please read our WP:COI, and especially the WP:PAID editing policies, and make necessary disclosures before you proceed. Good luck! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Isha2109. The Wikipedia article about Hexaware Technologies was deleted per a community consensus established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hexaware Technologies (2nd nomination). This actually deleted once before, recreated, deleted once again, recreated again and then deleted yet once again, which means trying to recreate it one more time is probably going to be rather difficult to do; not impossible but rather difficult because there are some major issues which are going to need to be overcome to avoid it being deleted once again. So, my suggestion to you would be to carefully read through Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and do an honest self-assessment as to whether not only should an article be written about this company but also whether any such article is likely to survive another nomination for deletion. If you do that and truly think the company is Wikipedia notable enough for an article to be written about it, you should then explain your reasons to the last administrator who deleted the article (her name is Premeditated Chaos). Premeditated Chaos might not agree to undelete the article right away, but she may give you the OK to work on a draft version of an article that she can monitor to make sure you're not repeating the same mistakes as those who tried to previously create an article about this company. If your draft is a significant improvement over the most recently deleted version of the article, Premediated Chaos may be willing to restore the article as your draft.Now, if you're connected to the company it anyway (e.g. an employee or representative) then you also need to carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and do your best to comply with both. Being connected to the company doesn't mean you cannot try and create an article or draft for an article about it, but it does mean that you have to be careful in doing so and make sure you comply with all relevant policies and guidelines related to conflict-of-interest and paid contributions. If you don't comply with these policies and guidelines it will not only almost certainly mean you will not be able to recreate the article, but it could also mean your account will end up blocked by an administrator. So, if you're connected to the company in anyway, make sure you clearly state as much to Premeditated Chaos because it will make it much easier for her to try and help you. You can post a message to Premeditated Chaos on her user talk page at User talk:Premeditated Chaos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
This has all been explained at length on my talk page. Unfortunately neither Isha2109 nor the IP that preceded them show any signs of understanding our policies. For the record, given the history and the obvious COI, I am absolutely opposed to restoring the content, even to draft, unless there is appropriate high-quality sourcing that indicates notability (which there will not be, or it would've been provided already). Isha2109 is free to start a draft version from scratch if they want, but I will not be providing assistance or guidance. ♠PMC(talk) 14:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Improving a draft

hai is somebody here to review the page and hep me to improve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kanadikavu_Shree_Vishnmaya_Kuttichathan_Swamy_temple — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanadikavu vishnumaya (talk • contribs) 05:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Kanadikavu vishnumaya, there is too much material that's not supported by reliable sources, drafts not meeting WP:V won't be accepted. Please consult WP:RS and find some sources that qualify, to support the claims therein or remove those claims that can not be supported. The draft reads too reverent for an encyclopedia. Please rewrite it in a neutral language. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's just a building or an institution, depending on the scope of the article. You might seek help from members of WP:WikiProject Hinduism and/or WP:WikiProject India; with some luck, you might find someone interested in working with you on it. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

New contributor - new page

Hello teahouse, I am new to Wikipedia and have just made my first few edits on existing pages. I would like to create a new page, but how do I find out when I am able to create new pages? Also, is it possible to copy an existing page so I can use its structure?

Kind regards, Richard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricu112 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ricu112, and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at your contributions so far, it appears that you are here mostly to promote Recipharm. Do you have a conflict of interest regarding this company? If so, please comply with our mandatory Paid editing disclosure and all its provisions. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ricu112. If by new "page" you mean a Wikipedia article, then you will be able to create one once you're account has become WP:AUTOCONFIRMED; however, before you set out to create an article you might want to look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for a general idea as to what types of subjects are generally considered OK to create articles about. You can find out some information on how to create articles in Help:Your first article, how to format, etc. articles in Wikipedia:Manual of Style and how to add references to articles in Help:Referencing for beginners, but the most important thing is going to be to find a subject that meets Wikipedia:Notability because a lack of Wikipedia notability is usually the reason while an article ends up being deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Could someone edit the page Mountain Fair and help start it's talk page?

I created the page Mountain Fair about a large annual summer arts fair in my area. Since I created it about two years ago, I've been the close to the only one who's made any edits to the page, having made a vast majority of the edits that have been made to it. Could someone please take a look at it and edit as needed? Also it's talk page hasn't been started yet and I've noticed that most talk pages have some similar stuff in them like a page eating, wikiprojects it is a part of, etc. and I'm not sure what it needs. Could someone please take a look at the page, edit it as needed and help start it's talk page? Thanks so much in advance to anyone who does any of this. Greshthegreat (talk)

Hi Greshthegreat. If you'd like a sort of formal review of the article, you might try asking at WP:PR. If you want to try and figure out which WikiProjects might cover this type of article, what you can do is look at the talk pages of similar articles and see which WikiProjects cover them. Similar articles are often categorized in the same way so look for similar types of festivals in Category:Annual fairs and check their talk pages. Pretty much all of the WikiProject banners you'll find on a talk page contain a link to the project's main page, and each project has its own talk page; so, you can also ask for assistance there. If you're not sure what I mean by this, take a look at the top of the talk page for the Teahouse as an example. Once you find an appropriate WikiProject, just add it's banner to the top of the page. WikiProject banners are templates; so, all you need to do is find the name of the template and go to its documentation page to see how it works. One WikiProject whose scope the article probably falls under is Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado and the WikiProject banner for that project is Template:WikiProject Colorado. Another WikiProject that might cover this is Wikipedia:WikiProject Festivals and it's banner can be found at Template:WikiProject Festivals. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I put a general and CO banner at the top of Talk. You can amend that if you wish. David notMD (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

How can I publish this article? What I made wrong?

I am new in Wikipedia and I would like to publish a page in relation with a project in relation with wildfires. This project has funded by public money (HORIZON 2020). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauCosta2020 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


I would like to publish this article, but still in a different format from others such as this: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEGO

And it has a different link. What can I do ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauCosta2020 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

For the Archive: 11:37, 18 March 2020 Yunshui talk contribs blocked PauCosta2020 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ({{uw-spamublock}} <!-- (SUPG) -->). If there is anybody reading this, Please dont try to WP:MOVE it yourself. You can ask for specific feedback by asking here or by submitting to WP:AFC. Creating an article about your company is a very bad idea, as you have a Conflict or interest and would need to comply with WP:PAID. 12:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Request on 11:29:14, 18 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Ianpalmer


I have submitted this article which has been rejected twice. It is for a TV manufacturer called Cello Electronics. They have been established for 20 years and are the only remaining TV manufacturer in the UK. They appeared twice on BBC Breakfast and once on BBC One Show in the last 12 months. Cello have made some notable product developments over the years with solar-powered products for Africa being one of the latest interesting ideas. They are well covered in the press with these developments.

I have added citations and references where appropriate, but the article continues to be rejected. I have also been careful with language and tone to make sure it doesn't read like an advertisement.

I wonder if you could help advise me on any specific changes I need to make to the article in order to get it published for the benefit and interest of Wikipedia readers.

Thanks for your help.

Ian Ianpalmer (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Ianpalmer (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IanpalmerYour question was answered here Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, your draft has been rejected, creating an article about your own company is probably the hardest task on Wikipedia and you will find few editors willing to help you. I suggest you find other articles to improve. Theroadislong (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

How to report a article

How to report an article or how to make a correction in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajankumar408 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sajankumar408, there isn't a central authority here. Unless the issue is illegal content, you should post at the article's talk page, or give us the the link to the article here so we can have a look.
If you want to make a correction to an article, make sure you have a reliable source for the information, then edit the page the same way you edited this one - see User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners for how to cite your sources. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 11:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Although, if this about adam's bridge, there have been five attempts to move this page. Wikipedia uses the name most commonly used in English language sources. The page is very unlikley to be moved. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 11:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy: Adam's bridge, and the discussion at the article's Talk page is clear that in the English Wikipedia, this is and will remain the name of the article even though Rama setu is an older name (as covered in the article). David notMD (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Help me

Please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalidlatif12 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The draft you created has been deleted. The reason given: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." Volunteers here cannot see it (unless they are also Administrators), and so cannot advise on what went wrong. David notMD (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Khalidlatif12: I can quickly add (having viewed the deleted article) that you tried to write a blog-type post on how to choose the best type of survival knives. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and definitely not a guidance manual, so that type of content would never be accepted here. I'm really sorry if you were confused by this, and thank you for trying. But it was far too loaded with uncited personal opinion, and only seemed to serve to promote one online commercial site. If you'd like greater understanding on this, please take a look through: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I would politely ask you not to try to use Wikipedia in this way in future. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are these two distinct quirks of articles hosted on different Wikipedias in place?

I've noticed two distinct quirks that apply to articles hosted on different Wikipedias in general:

@Childishbeat: Each Wikipedia language decides their own policies. I don't know the policies of the Arabic or Russian Wikipedia, or the conventions of those languages in general. The English Wikipedia writes surname last in article titles but sorts by surname in categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

How does search engine indexing work?

I just wrote my first article for Wikipedia, so I'm very new to it. After publishing it, it was showing up in Google search for about a week, but no longer shows up when I do a Google search. Can someone tell me why? I was expecting a wait time, but not expecting it to show up right away and then disappear, so I'm curious.

my article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lela_Murray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmchamber01 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nmchamber01, welcome to the Teahouse. New articles don't allow indexing by external search engines like Google for 90 days or until they have been reviewed by a user with a required right. Lela Murray sounds like an unusual case because a reviewer marked it patrolled and then unreviewed a minute later.[13] They also edited the article that minute.[14] I think indexing was allowed for one minute and Google examined the page there because they monitor edits to articles. About a week later they must have come back and discovered that indexing was no longer allowed. It will be allowed in 82 days or when somebody reviews it again. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
It would be unusual in that google would have to have caught it right that minute and then not checked back for a week. However, what the reviewer did is something that happens all the time. The reviewing toolbar allows tagging the page for problems but automatically checks the "review" button while tagging; when the reviewer only wants to tag the page for problems, they don't always notice the checkmark or remember to uncheck it. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Google actually catches new pages immediately and doesn't check them again until a few weeks later. I think it's disregarding the nofollow on Special:NewPages or something. This is a problem on other wikis that allow indexing immediately, attack pages show up right away in Google and stay there. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
It's inaccurate to say that the articles or Wikipedia don't allow indexing. We provide search engines with an ability to distinguish between reviewed and unreviewed articles, it is completely their prerogative whether to disregard it. It just so happens that google defers to us on what to index. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Our software deliberately adds noindex to the html of unreviewed articles for the sole purpose of asking search engines to not index them. Search engines are not required by law to obey it but I think all major search engines respect noindex. Otherwise they will get a lot of junk which isn't meant for readers of a website. We also do it in many places outside articles. See more at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Introducing quotes with "As ... said"

Can we discuss removing the use of "As so-and-so said" when introducing a quote? It appears to be endorsing the speaker's point of view, which is usually unintended on articles.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Naddruf, welcome to the Teahouse. Are you seeing this anywhere in particular? Tonal style varies across articles depending on who edits them. Tenryuu ???? ( ???? • ????) 23:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleting Sandbox and History

After experimenting with Sandbox, I'd like to erase it and also to erase the revisions history. How can I reset everything into a clean beginning stage? (I'm using Visual Editor) --Dranoel26 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Just put {{db-u1}} at the top of it. It's a speedy deletion request for a user page. - X201 (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Just noticed the mention of Visual Editor. Can't offer advice how you do it using that, I've never used it. - X201 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I've never used it either, but I just tried it out on the main sandbox. It appears that you can hover your mouse over the top of the editing window, click the + Add Paragraph button when it appears, and then copy and paste the code that X201 shows above. It should render as a large pink box requesting deletion for the page. Then publish changes. CThomas3 (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Validity of Structural Biochemistry/ Kiss Gene Expression as a article title

Is Structural Biochemistry/ Kiss Gene Expression a valid article title? Per WP:SUB, which states Except in the main namespace (article namespace), where the subpage feature has been disabled in the English Wikipedia, subpages are pages separated with a "/" (a slash) from their 'parent' page, this shouldn't be allowed. So why is there a slash? Should the page be moved? Thanks, ~ Tridwoxi (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tridwoxi. Yes, I think you are right to be concerned by this title. Just as Structural Biochemistry/ Apoptosis Inducing Factor is now a redirect to Apoptosis-inducing factor. Personally, I'd raise it on the article talk page and propose your move rationale and see what other editors say. But you'd be justified, I feel, to 'WP:BEBOLD' and move it first and see if anyone objects, and then you could discuss it. Good spot! If you could improve the article itself, that'd be really fantastic. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This page was last updated at 2020-03-19 09:14, update this pageView original page

All information on this site, including but not limited to text, pictures, etc., are reproduced on Wikipedia (wikipedia.org), following the . Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License