From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


(Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.)

Possible plagiarism in an article with Portuguese references; I do not speak Portuguese.[edit]

I was doing some simple editing in the article

= Gustavo Franco = . I noticed that the language seemed very scholarly and then I came across a section that appeared to be cut off and did not make sense. There are a number of reasons for this excluding plagiarism and if the references were in English I would start there. What would you advise? I am very willing to believe that I am worrying about nothing except some sentences that got forgotten in an edit. Thank you bobdog54 (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, bobdog54. The best place to express your concerns is on the Talk page of the article in question.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply. I will do that. bobdog54 (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I want to upload photo and descriptions[edit]

Hi !! I'm new here and I don't know how to use this app even i don't know how to upload it to wikipedia. I'm so curious to know about it. . Please if you know teach me ill be waiting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankhilmengnu (talkcontribs) 12:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sankhilmengnu: Please see your talk page for some important information about Wikipedia, what it is, and what it is not. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)



  • Q: I want to ask that how can I make my user page protected? permanantly?
  • Q :How can I make my Images center-aligned?
  • Q :How can I make other colors like light-blue, dark-green.
  • Q: My last question is that how can I make images as a link?, I tried to do it in HTML format. Thankyou. Ars147 (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ars147: I've adjusted your post to make it a little more readable. To answer your questions:
  • New users and IP editors already can not edit your user page. There isn't an easy way to make it so that nobody but you can edit it. Administrators can protect pages, but MediaWiki, the software that Wikipedia uses, doesn't allow that kind of fine-grained control. There are ways to get around that, but they're complicated and not really suitable for this non-technical board.
  • To center-align an image you can use: [[File:example.png|thumb|center]]. To center text or other elements, you can use {{center}}.
  • You can use colored text via {{color}}.
  • You can use images as links with: [[File:example.png|20px|link=Example|This is my example caption]]. However, you should read Help:Pictures#Links first, because this could violate the license of a non-public domain image. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ars147: A couple additions:
  • Regarding your user page, I don't see anything inappropriate posted by other users on either User:Ars147 or User talk:Ars147 (other than maybe the IP's comment about a malformed redirect request being a little short). Is there a particular problem you are having?
  • Regarding image linking, are you perhaps trying to embed externally-hosted images (i.e. not hosted at Wikipedia or Commons) with HTML <img src="...">? That is not supported (intentionally). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

document servitude[edit]

please create an article in wikipedia on document servitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Hi there, welcome to Wikipedia. I don’t know what that is, maybe Indentured servitude? We can’t create articles for you, but if you would like to, please see Your First Article. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Willb234 It is strange that the bot that autosigns in case an (would be) editor doesn't, didn't do it's job. I have no idea who this character was that asked WP to create an article. That brings up another subject. I've noticed from time to time, persons asking on the Teahouse that someone create an article for them. Maybe there should be a clear statement, that editors are volunteers and don't take requests or respond to demands. In other words it appears that there are persons who harbor a belief that WP is an on demand service. Like dialing up Pizza delivery, only it is free.Oldperson (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Oldperson: The bot doesn't always do this immediately, but you can insert an 'unsigned' template yourself by adding, in this instance {{subst:unsigned|}}. (Just put the relevant username which you can get from the 'View History' tab after the vertical pipe). Nick Moyes (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Edit-a-thon[edit]

Wikipedia Editathon at Newnham College, Cambridge University, March 2017. A introductory talk from User:RexxS.
Schoolgirls at Wikipedia Editathon, Cambridge University. Having enough helpers on hand to give practical advice is important.

For a long time, I have been thinking of conducting Wikipedia: Edit-a-thon for a group of students (Age group:12-16 years). Finally, I got the time. Can anybody suggest me some Do's and Dont's for the same. Some Wikipedia Policies and Wikipedia Projects to be shared with them for constructive editing and collaboration. Thanks! Peppy Paneer

Hi Peppy Paneer Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your really great question. Running a successful editathon can be really rewarding. We have a few general resources available that might help you plan an event, and I might be able to add a few suggestions of my own. Firstly, we have a basic introduction at Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon, and we even have a training programme you can work through on this topic at I have a few personal notes and planning list available for my own use at User:Nick Moyes/editathon, too. As for policies, guidelines and help - do keep these to a minimum (maybe just mention WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS) I did a printed handout (see User:Nick Moyes/editathon/handout1 which contains shortcuts they can use in order to find some of the really useful pages.
I'll spend a few moments putting a some extra ideas for you to consider, but I thought I'd just post this partial reply first. Would I be right in assuming you're a teacher and this is a school class, or is it an extra-curricular activity for people who might not know one another, or is there a shared interest? How much time will you be making available for the event? i.e. might it be a half-day drop-in, or a 45 minute classroom session? Knowing a little more about your intentions might assist me to offer you suggestions. Please ensure you ping me correctly, by signing your post with four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~), and including my username in your reply. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Peppy Paneer: Right, back again. Here are a few random things for you to consider:
  • What is the groups' current experience of Wikipedia? What do you want to achieve? (e.g. will you focus on using Wikipedia, or actually editing Wikipedia? How much time will they have? What key things do you want them to take away from the event?
  • Getting attendees to create a free account each prior to the event is highly advisable. (Lots of time gets wasted trying to create accounts on the day.
  • Suggest they try The Wikipedia Adventure beforehand. (Make sure you have actually done it and got all 15 badges, too!)
  • Ensure you have enough equipment/wi-fi coverage/helpers on the day
  • Might you need to get yourself 'event coordinator' rights so you can create more than the normal limit of six new user accounts per IP address, per day? See WP:EVC.
  • Depending on your focus, do you need to prepare example text for students to work with? If so, you could copy a small part an existing article they are likely to be familiar with, and change it off-wiki so that it contains false information, typos, poor formatting and unsubstantiated facts that they need to find and fix. They should never work on real articles until ready - use the user sandboxes!
  • Decide whether you're going to introduce them to editing via the normal editing tool, or with Visual Editor. Stick to one, though do mention that the other exists.
  • Get students to bring their own devices for editing, but provide as many laptops as you can if unknown numbers might attend. (Make the wifi password clearly visible to everyone. Tell all mobile phone users to work in 'desktop' view, not mobile view, or there will be problems in understanding any instructions given.
  • Ensure you record the usernames of everyone attending (signing-in book/blackboard?)- this helps you provide support, both during and especially after the event. You or one of your helpers could even post a welcome message to every attendee during the event, or perhaps afterwards.
  • If there's not a fixed start time, and students can drop in at any point, consider running a short introductory talk at set times during the event.
  • Sound travels - intro talks and individual working areas need to be some distance away from each other to avoid noise disturbance.
  • Introduce what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia is not. Find out who has used it, and for what purpose. Explain the principle of [[WP:V|Verifiability], and how it is essential only to add factual statements if other people can check these Reliable sources for themselves. Ask the group if anyone has anyone has ever edited Wikipedia themselves. (It's OK for them to admit they only did so out of mischief)
  • Explain how valuable Wikipedia is to student and schoolchildren around the world, especially in places where books are scarce. Explain how unhelpful it is if articles get damaged through mischief, vandalism, or if wrong 'facts' are included. Explain how they can help to improve content and how cool it is to help others in that way.
  • Tell them they can get help/support whilst editing by going to the Teahouse and asking us for assistance. And always listen to advice if another editor posts on their talk page.
  • If you have the resources, project a live webpage of Wikipedia on a screen and guide them through the basic layout. (Powerpoint screenshots are the next best thing)
  • Show them how to log-in (or sign up, if they haven't already), then to add a few lines about their interests. But, ensure they never reveal personal information about themselves or their family - see WP:YOUNG. Demonstrate how to go to their personal sandbox where they can experiment with editing in relative safely.
  • Get each student to work through The Wikipedia Adventure (but be aware of the limitations on both browser type, and especially of it not working well on mobile devices - see front page of WP:TWA for details), or:
  • Guide them through working through and fixing mistakes in your previously created dummy article. (Get them to add one reference, if at all possible)
  • If they're advanced enough by this stage, encourage students to look for articles about their local area/favourite subject and identify things that could be improved. Maybe discuss each suggestion as a group before taking action?
  • Make sure you reprise your key message(s) of the day
  • Can you provide each person with a takeaway handout summarising what they should have covered, and what they can do next
  • Do they know how to contact you as event coordinator, or to seek help from us here at the Teahouse.
  • Ensure you reiterate the importance of not revealing personal details, or treating Wikipedia like social media.
  • Will they leave your Editathon, appreciating that they themselves can now go on to actually contribute to the world's greatest free online encyclopaedia, and perhaps help someone on the other side of the world who needs information? Will they be empowered and have a sense of responsibility in what they can now do? If 'Yes', then you've done a great job!
  • Follow up with each user a week or so later. Thank them for coming, ask if they need any assistance from you, and encourage them to continue. A second follow-up can be done a month later to see if they've continued editing.
I hope a few of these rough thoughts might be of some use. (I've had to guess at the type of audience you're aiming at) Feel free to follow up if you have any further specific questions. I did note that you haven't edited here for a couple of years, so it might be sensible to refresh your own editing practice before you dive in at the deep end. Very best of luck, and drop by my talk page with an update if you wish. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The article titled "The Fellowship (Christian organization)" has, in its thumbnail the faces of Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley, two thinkers who never had any association with the organization.[edit]

Dear Wikipedia people,

This is my first post here, so thank you for reading, if anyone is.

I belief this article to be a gross mischaracterization of both William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman. They never had any part of this odd Christian organization.

I understand that it's part of a series on conservatism in the United States, but I believe that a percentage of readers will not notice that and will assume that the faces on the article will be of members of the organization.

You might not be conservative, but you must realize that this is an unfair representation.

Thank you.

-Clayton Weaver — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claytonweaver97 (talkcontribs) 01:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the infobox, it says This is part of a series of Conservativism in the United States, and it has the pictures of six men, including Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and I doubt that they were members of the organization. But that is irrelevant to the description in the infobox, which is conservativism in the United States. I see no problem here for all six are accepted representatives of conservativism in the United States. The info box is NOT labeled The Fellowship.Oldperson (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: The Fellowship (Christian organization). @Claytonweaver97: Try to keep section headers to just a few concise words. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Although I understand Claytonweaver97's confusion since the pictures are very prominent and large. Comparing to other "series" templates, this seems unnecessary confusing (cf. {{Libertarianism in the United States sidebar}} or {{Socialism sidebar}}). I reduced the image size to 200px which means it no longer overshadows the infoboxes in size. Regards SoWhy 09:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, what a lot of logged-in regulars are unaware of is that the Wikimedia Foundation has been tinkering with the software, and Wikipedia now behaves fairly differently when logged out (i.e., to 99.9% of readers), particularly with regards to the behavior when hovering over links. Log out, hover over this link, and you'll see just why Claytonweaver97 is legitimately concerned that this is misleading. ‑ Iridescent 09:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I used Chrome's "Open link in Incognito mode" option and noticed no difference.--Auric talk 10:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you mean, as the "first image" on the page, it gets displayed. Perhaps they have a logo that can be added?--Auric talk 10:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The feature is mw:Page Previews which can be enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. I don't know whether it's up to date but mw:Page Previews#Rollout Update July 2018 says: "The feature is on by default for anonymous users and newly created accounts and off by default for accounts created before July 10, 2018." Editors often prefer "Navigation popups" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. The image is automatically chosen by mw:Extension:PageImages. {{Conservatism US}} is displayed in 119 articles and its image became the page image for several of them. Individual articles cannot disable it but may avoid it by displaying another image first. It can be blacklisted as page image at MediaWiki:Pageimages-blacklist. I don't know the effect on efficiency if we start blacklisting many images but there are few now so I added File:Conservatism in the United States Collage 2.jpg. It took a few minutes to take effect but it's now removed as page image for The Fellowship (Christian organization). This means it's no longer listed as page image under "Page information" in the left pane. Page previews may use caching and continue to display it for a while. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
While that was happening, I added a 1px blank image to the article before the navbar transclusion to cause the PagePreview gadget to display the blank image instead. I started to write about this earlier because I recall the issue with NavPops (and my solution to it), but I tried hovering over a link to the article with NavPops and it didn't choose the one from the template. I now realize that was probably because NavPops ignores templates completely (or, configurably, displays their source). I must have been distracted by something shiny on the way to seeing if PagePreview did it Face-smile.svg. Anywho, I see my unneeded (and apparently ignored by PagePreview) hack was just reverted. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
As for logo, that was my first thought too, but apparently they don't have one, at least not on their homepage. Regards SoWhy 11:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem in logging in huggle[edit]

Hi, when I tried to log in in huggle it says that login failed (on enwiki) authentication requires user interaction which is not supported by action=login. What am I supposed to do?Andrew Base (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Andrew Base please raise your request/question here and editor help you accordingly. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA I raised my question there.Andrew Base (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Base:, Answered in Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback. That might be helpful. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 09:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I change the title of an existing page?[edit]


I'm working on the existing page for a film 'Mr. Jerico,' but the film's real title is 'Mister Jerico.' How would I go about changing it, please?

Beryl reid fan (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Beryl reid fan, The way to change the title of a page is to WP:MOVE the page. If you believe the move would not be contentious, then you can be WP:BOLD and do it yourself; however, if you want to play it safe, you can request the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Just going to add that while having the correct title of the film is important, I think there some other problems with the article regardless of whether it's Mr. Jerico or Mister Jerico since it's not immediately clear whether WP:NFILM is met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly, that's very helpful. Beryl reid fan (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Why my changes are rolled out[edit]

I have made some changes ,It has been rolled out can I know the reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by PandiJack007 (talkcontribs) 10:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason was explained in the edit summaries which you can see in the article history, and an explanation was also added to your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
You made changes to Kavin (actor) which were reversed. The content you added may be true, but unless you can provide published sources verifying this, the content cannot be added to the article. Articles about living people have a very high requirement for verification. David notMD (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of a page reference from google.[edit]

My Article on Partha Pratim Moitra has been deleted twice and I find no hope to get it through in Wiki. But in Google there is still the reference. Is there any way to remove that reference from google? I have rewritten the article, as per guidance from the person who first time deleted my article. Now I understand I am not worth. I contested the deletion but with no effect. Now I intend to learn, how to remove any reference of the person from search engines. As it was no promotional effort it may be embarrassing for the person.Brihannalasom (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Brihannalasom. The deleted article Partha Pratim Moitra will automatically be removed from Google search results next time they try to visit the page and discover it's gone. Wikipedia does not control when this happens. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
(ec) @Brihannalasom: Wikipedia doesn't have much control over external search engines that crawl over its pages. The now-deleted page should (probably) have meta-data on it that will keep Google from indexing it in the future, but I don't know when it might attempt to re-visit the page. You might try looking at Google's help documentation or inquiring at their help forums. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Help with indexing for page "Michael Hiller"[edit]

I need helping out why a page isn't indexed when appears at the end of the articles meta data.

The title of the article is "Michael Hiller" and I've hyperlinked the url to the title of the page in this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raudy5000 (talkcontribs) 13:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

New articles are NOINDEXed until they have been reviewed through the new page patrol process (or 90 days have expired if longer). --David Biddulph (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why I see INDEX at the bottom of the text and nowhere do I see _____noindex____ as I would expect of the article was indeed not indexed.

Here is what I see at the bottom of the text (with spaces removed):

__ INDEX __ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raudy5000 (talkcontribs) 14:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You have again forgotten to sign your message. The _INDEX_ was added in this edit of yours, but it is ignored, see WP:Controlling search engine indexing#INDEX magic word. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

How to export settings?[edit]

Is it possible to export the preferences to a file, to import later? If not, I suggest it as a feature. ––Handroid7 (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. Last time I tried to change my preferences, I messed up, couldn't figure out how to get back to their previous state, and had to reset all my preferences to the default state. The ability to make a backup would be really useful. Maproom (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. I'd back a Wikipedia:Village Pump proposal. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Editors are editing and removing my articles and demanding quotations of sources when they are already quoted.[edit]

Certain editors are not fairly assessing the context of my quoted articles and are deleting arrogantly without consultation, can this be part of an organised watch group to suppress Fijian historical facts?Saqiwa (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Saqiwa Welcome to Teahouse. I believe Nakorotubu District is the article you mentioned about and @DrKay: is the editor/admin who deleted your unsourced content. Pls note no "derogatory comments" were made to you by DrKay as you have mentioned in Kudpung talk page as the warnings placed on your talk page are standard messages. If you have a look at the history page HERE, DrKay has provided the reason of the removal of the content. Do note unsourced content can be removed without consultation of any editor as content claimed needs to be support by sources whereby they can be verify and "all content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." - see WP:PROVEIT. Please see independent and reliable sources info and requirements so you may know the guidelines. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 16:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Saqiwa. Just want to add that a Wikipedia article is not really owned by anyone or anything per Wikipedia:Ownership of content and wmf:Terms of Use, except perhaps technically by the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia and the servers which host the content on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects. So, neither those you create or edit Wikipedia articles nor the subjects of articles have any final editorial control over articles or their respective content. Moreover, Wikipedia encourages editors to be WP:BOLD in creating or editing articles; so, no real prior approval is needed (except in certain limited cases). Wikipedia hopes that editors will create articles and edit them in accordance with its various policies and guidelines and further hopes that other editors will boldly fix mistakes or other problems so that articles are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. So, it's generally a good idea to assume good faith with respect to edits made by others, even if the edits revert or change one of your own edits, and try to understand why the edit was made (i.e. what policy or guideline is being applied). Understanding why an edit was made can make it easier to figure whether there truly was a problem and how to fix things if there was. Editors often disagree on whether an edit is a problem and when that happens it's best to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to try and figure things out. Assuming that others are only editing so as to suppress Fijian historical facts is not really a good way to try and be WP:HERE. Wikipedia's purpose is not really to present Fijian historical facts, but rather only content about Fiji which can be verified through citations to reliable sources and which is deemed relevant to its readers by the Wikipedia Community. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Teahouse,
Thank you for your explanation. The editing would have been more acceptable if they were consistent with the guidelines. I cannot understand the inconsistencies by Dr Kay (and supporting editors) who have been inconsistent in 'deleting big volumes' of proven academic write ups/sources of Nakorotubu district and other contributing articles but yet have replaced the articles with 'wrong names of places' and 'a global institution that contains incorrect names' (e.g UN report with wrong names of the 7 Nakorotubu sub districts ). After contributing for the last 4 years on the Nakorotubu district and other articles, the sudden and increased interests and inconsistent editing implies that there are more external factors to consider from the reasons of the editors. Particularly when I as the author of the Nakorotubu article for the last 4 years was threatened by Dr Kay not to ever change the Nakorotubu article again or I will be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. This is really unfair and sad, someone with limited research knowledge and work on Nakorotubu to ban me from contributing on such a topic that I have contributed to for the last 4 years. There is definitely something more than this, perhaps the sensitivity of the Fijian historical facts exposed?
Saqiwa (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi again Saqiwa. If you're involved in a disagreement over article content, then the thing for you do would be to discuss things on the article's talk page. So, if you have concerns about the content of Nakorotubu District (i.e. you think it's wrong in some way), then you should start a discussion at Talk:Nakorotubu District and see what other editors think. You could even try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fiji for input. Basically, you were bold and tried to improve the article, which is OK to do; however, another editor disagreed with the changes you made and reverted them. So, you should now follow WP:BRD and try and resolve things through discussion. By discussing things, you can explain why the changes need to be made and how they comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you can establish a consensus through discussion, the changes will be made; if not, they won't. If you can show that the changes you made can be supported by citations to reliable sources, then others are likely to agree with you; on the other hand, if the content your adding is unsourced or appears to be some kind of original research, then it's going to be really hard to establish a consensus in favor of adding it. The fact the someone is disagreeing with you on article content does not automatically mean they are wrong or that there are some "external factors" influencing their edits anymore than it means that you are wrong and there are "external factors" influencing your edits. You'll have a much better chance of resolving this is you don't assume bad faith with respect to others.
The warning added to your user talk page appears to be the last in a serious of warnings. If you make an edit which is challenge by another editor, you might receive a mild "level-1" warning advising you not to do so again. The warnings, however, tend to become more strongly worded if you keep repeating the same edit or keep doing the same thing. The last warning was a "level-3" warning added because you apparently keep adding unsourced content to the article despite being previously advised not to do so twice before. It's not a warning that says "not to ever change the article again"; it's a warning to not re-add unsourced content to the article again.
Finally, It makes no difference how long certain content has been in article if it's something which doesn't comply with relevant policies and guidelines; it can be removed at anytime by another editor. The best way to prevent that from happening is to make sure the content you add is neutrally worded, encyclopedically relevant to the reader, and can be verified by citations to reliable sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Saqiwa:. If this process of resolving disagreements about edits seems onerous, it is. It's so simple to make an edit, but once there's a dispute, then the veil of simplicity falls apart. It becomes about familiarity with a complicated set of intricate rules, applying intimidation effectively, and persistence. For normal people, the level of satisfaction plummets, and along with that, willingness to continue participation.
It's probably fair to think of editing Wikipedia as a form of multiplayer game... so if you view editing Wikipedia as a game, then having all these rules could be just great! But if your primary motivation is to improve Wikipedia, you will eventually encounter this frustration ... and it becomes difficult to simply give in, because the more effort you put into your position, the more you are likely to believe in your position and the more you have invested. Short of re-inventing Wikipedia, I have no solution to offer. Fabrickator (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow, that sounds an awful lot like WP:BATTLEGROUND, one of the things that Wikipedia is not.
Saqiwa, continuing to assume bad faith on the part of your fellow editors is almost guaranteed to result in a poor outcome for you. Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they have an ulterior motive, especially something as unlikely as wanting to suppress Fijian history. As far as content age, pages like the one in question that have "fewer than 30 watchers" ([1]) may have content for years that nobody concerned has seen or taken the time to object to – that doesn't mean someone can't legitimately object to it. I looked at what I think is the content in question (here) and it definitely has issues, including due weight and sourcing. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse members, Ok I rest my case, thanks for reminding me that I will get frustrated if I want to improve information on wikipedia but just to treat editing and contribution on wikipedia as a form of a game with rules. Saqiwa (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


Hello, help me re-edit the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by John kiamaingi (talkcontribs) 15:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? All your edits are in your user space. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 15:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


hi 🙋🏻‍♂️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotfamousface (talkcontribs) 16:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question? I am happy to help you out. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 16:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Are events supposed to be included in articles about universities?[edit]

I am currently copy editing Indus Business Academy, Bangalore, which has quite a large section on events held by the academy. To me, it reads in quite an advertising tone, but I'm not sure whether or not to remove them entirely or to try and trim them down to remove the advertising. Any pointers would be appreciated. LampGenie01 (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

And they are all primary-sourced and about all the text in the article. WP:AFD may be the way to go, I have not looked after useful sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I also did a copyvio check due to the tone of the article, and it came up as an 80% possibility of a violation (before I pruned it). Would it still be advisable to go down the deletion route, or try to change it? LampGenie01 (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
If you think you can get the article into an acceptable state, go ahead. But I'm sceptical. Maproom (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I've sent it to AfD. Between the copyright violations and the advert like tone (not mentioning the fact that I can't find any notable third party sources on the place), I'm as sceptical as you are. LampGenie01 (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

U T khader[edit]

Please guys Help me To Create this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almas Khanum (talkcontribs) 18:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Almas Khanum, Wikipedia has had an article U. T. Khader since 2014. Are you thinking of someone else with that name? Maproom (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Note that this same editor has removed a declination template unilaterally from the draft Sar Faraz Harfi. I have replaced it, but the article did not become a draft again.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Where do I send a bug report about URL linking[edit]

Have a look at Worimi language. There is a reference there with the URL but if you click on the URL in the wikipedia references it goes to which is an error page. How do I work out if this is a wikipedia problem or an problem? Thanks, Newystats (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Newystats. The url field had a non-displayed character. My browser hinted it by standing still there while pressing left arrow. The character didn't belong there but the software correctly applied percent-encoding to make the broken url. The character was U+202C Pop directional formatting. You accidentally added it in [2]. I don't know how but such things are not uncommon. We probably have loads of them which are undetected because they don't break something. I have removed the character with Backspace. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Newystats (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

drama film[edit]

Whenever I hover over the words "drama film" in an article, what pops up are the words "hi fatty". What does that mean? Am I being watched somehow?Dannysgirl39 (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dannysgirl39, welcome to the Teahouse. The text "drama film" is often linked to the article Drama (film and television) which had been vandalized. I have reverted the vandalism. Thanks for reporting it. There is a feature which shows the start of a linked article when you hover over the link. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

What do I do with pages whose stable version(s) have not been updated?[edit]

I've been wanting this question to be answered.

Hi Dozed Off. Update them. David notMD (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

How to make a draft an article[edit]

Hello. Please let me know what I should add to my draft:Draft:Susumu Nishibe to make it an article. Thanks.Nishibe0121 (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The editor who declined the draft provided guidance as to what is needed. David notMD (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Edmund de Waal - heavy edit - advice wanted.[edit]

Hi Teahouse folks,

I have made a few smaller edits to the Edmund de Waal entry, and now realised that it probably needs a complete clean up/edit/re-write to comply with Wikipedia policies so that perhaps the "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (July 2016)" banner at the top can be removed and so that the entry is more neutral and aligned with Wikipedia's policies.

I was wondering if someone could have a look through the entry and help me identify what may be worth removing and cleaning up so I can learn this for further edits on other pages? I'm unsure if maybe it just needs more citing or links, or if perhaps there is just too much unnecessary information included and it all needs to be simplified. I thought I'd use this entry as a starting point in identifying entries that need a clean up.

Any help would be appreciated.

Fieldguide (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fieldguide: Welcome to the Teahouse. Over the years (judging by the talk page and edit history) the artist appears to have employed various assistants to work on 'their' page, and these users have edited very little else. In fact, your own editing history is quite suggestive of that type of new account, though it might be total coincidence? Either way, I feel you should create your user page and declare whether you yourself has (or has not) got any comnection with the artist. Those who are WP:PAID to edit are obligated by policy to declare their employer. Whilst the article is certainly a lot more neutral in tone than it once was, I feel the article template should definitely remain in place for now. There is simply too much uncited listing of innumerable exhibitions, honours and awards for me to feel that someone not closely connected with the subject actually created the content. It would be sensible for someone to work through, line by line, and ensure every 'factual assertion' is either sourced or deleted. I also reckon the very long quote should be cut by half. The middle section seems especially irrelevant. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and explanation! I can confirm that I do not work for the artist and don't have a conflict of interest in regards to having any connection to them, paid or unpaid. I'm a little unsure what to add to my user page, but I have added my location (Melbourne, Australia) and can add more information later. I read on the talk page of the entry that there was some content that someone working with him wanted to be added, so I thought that would be a good thing to try being new to Wiki editing. I'm currently doing a writing course (de Waal's work was brought up in a lecture, hence me finding his Wiki entry) and thought that Wiki editing would be helpful in helping myself copy edit my own work, so here I am a newbie at Wiki editing at 38. I will certainly take your advice on board when editing the page, there seems to be a lot of talking around the same content and maybe too many exhibitions talked about instead of maybe having a more concise summary of his career. Do you think it's wise to look at other similar artist entries to gain some insight into what is usually added to such an entry? Fieldguide (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fieldguide: (Please remember to sign your posts and include the recipients name if you hope for them to be notified of your response) Thanks for that explanation. Just say something like "hi I'm a student artist based in Melbourne; I have an interest in ceramics and plan to editing pages about X and Y but I'm not connected in any way with them" No need to reveal personaly identifiable stuff about yourself, though. Yes, it's always a good idea to look at comparable articles. Do have a go at The Wikipedia Adventure for the basics of editing. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thanks for the please remember nudge. I've edited my user page, and hopefully, it is clear enough. I'll make sure to check out The Wikipedia Adventure for some basics and start editing in the coming days. Thanks for being so welcoming. Fieldguide (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Unsure whether to merge or not.[edit]

I asked SuggestBot to give me a list of articles to work on. One of the articles (Carlton Tower and Portman Hotel shootings) had a merge template on. However, there has been no discussion on the talk page about whether or not to merge the article, and there are also discretionary sanctions applicable for the page as well. What should I do? LampGenie01 (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

LampGenie01, A merge template, or any other, is not an instruction, but a proposal/heads up. If you go through both articles, check the sources on both, and determine that a merger is better, that makes a consensus of two with no user having objected to it in the last seven months. If you disagree, you can ping the original proposer and discuss it with them. If you are OK with possibly having your effort reverted, you can BOLDly merge it and wait and see if it gets reverted. You can also initiate a discussion yourself on the talk page, and notify all the WikiProjects (on their talk page) listed on the articles' talk page, and see for a week or so, if anyone comes to contribute to the discussion. Regards! Usedtobecool TALK  07:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks like Asarlaí (talk · contribs) made that tag here. I am not sure I agree, it looks like a fair WP:SPINOUT, a small spinout, but logical and complete. Asarlaí is a very experienced editor, although he doesn't talk much. If you like the idea of doing the merge, I suggest you should discuss it on the talk page, and ping him. If you don't, if you agree with me, then remove the merge tag. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice guys. I pinged Asarlai on the talk page to try and initiate discussion and will see where that goes. LampGenie01 (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

incitement to crime[edit]

I wasn't able to find an editing policy on edits and images that incite to crime. For example, this image inciting people to set fire to refugee centers was added to several pages without any apparent reason other than to promote hate and crime against refugees. I can imagine that it could even be put back in the article immigration detention if that already had a discusson of hatred and violence against refugees and already had other images showing immigration detention or reception centers. --Espoo (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I assume that those additions have now been reverted. Currently, no articles on the English Wikipedia use this image. Dbfirs 11:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I removed them just now, but i was surprised that it was in immigration detention since Nov 2016 and that there is no warning or explanation on as to how, when, and whether it is legal to use stuff like this on a Wikimedia Foundation project. Someone even first reverted my removal from the Dutch Wikinews site. --Espoo (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Need Help on my first article[edit]

Hi there,

I am new to Wikipedia, I wish to create/write about some fun words and their expressions. How can i do that? Please point to me correct link for training or getting started? Thanks DD— Preceding unsigned comment added by DevanshhiD (talkcontribs)

@DevanshhiD: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read WP:NEO for information on articles that are created merely to discuss words or expressions. In short, any word or expression needs to have significant coverage of the word/expression itself in independent reliable sources indicating how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Successfully creating any new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia; it takes much time and practice. I would strongly suggest that you spend much time editing existing articles first, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is being looked for. You may also want to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

what to expect after adding "expert needed" tag[edit]

I added the "expert needed" tag to Fleet Marriage, though I didn't add a project because I wasn't confident about the right way to do that (both how to identify an appropriate project and exactly what markup is used to specify the project... my best efforts to interpret the documentation leave me scratching my head!).

Is there any next step to take? I understand this article may sit here with this tag for an extended period of time (years?), but kind of wonder what's the point?

This article was tolerable (though not without its flaws) when it was re-written in 2005, but over time, much of the material was deleted after "need citation" tags were inserted and nobody bothered to provide citations. The effect of these deletions has been to lower the article quality. I think this is termed an "exercise in futility".

But if nothing's going to happen in the way of actually identifying an expert to fix the problems, then I'd consider two other possibilities:

  • revert substantially all of the deletions made due to lack of citations
  • just delete the article

Please advise. Fabrickator (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator, you can read the scope of a WikiProject on their project page. To find, guess/determine, and add a WikiProject to an article, I find the most effective way is to go to an article on a most closely related topic. In this case, when I was new, I would go to Talk:Marriage, and copy the code for WikiProjects from there, and prune it to fit the requirements of the article that I'm editing. I can see two WikiProjects from Talk:England would also fit the subject. You get the idea.
You can try boldly reverting it to the last best version if you think an article has deteriorated over time. Just be sure to leave a courteous edit summary, and add a new section to the article's talk page notifying editors that you have reverted it back a long time, for such and such reasons, and see whether it stays, or gets reverted, or whether someone comes to join the discussion. Regards! Usedtobecool TALK  07:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

But I never MADE any edits...[edit]

I recently got a message saying an edit I made has been undone... but I have never to my knowledge ever edited any page. Is it possible my IP address has been hijacked, and if so , how do I stop this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. IP addresses are often used by more than one person. This does not mean your IP was "hijacked ". If you don't wish to get messages that aren't meant for you, you should create an account. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow! You have an interesting idea of 'recently'. That message was left almost five and a half years ago! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, if they had been regularly visiting their talk page whichever IP they're in with, and got assigned this IP recently, that is how they would see it, change in talk page wise. Usedtobecool TALK  18:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC), you can safely ignore the message because it was intended for someone else using your IP address years ago. To avoid this problem just WP:Create an account. Dbfirs 20:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Change of age[edit]

One of our client who's page is on Wikipedia is upset over her fake age which is damaging her credibility in showbiz. We edit the age someone again revert it. How we can sort this thing out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzbg123 (talkcontribs) 17:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You are not permitted to edit until you have made the mandatory declaration of paid editing. After that you can read about conflict of interest and use the article's talk page to suggest edits if you can support the proposals with references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Muzbg123, you can not use a shared account. Every account should be used by one user alone. You also need to comply with Wikipedia policies regarding paid editing. There is a message on your talk page about that. I suggest you not make any more edits until you have complied with the paid editing policy, or you might be blocked. About the particular edit, if it's getting reverted, it's most likely because the info is sourced and you are updating without a source. What you need to do is find a source that supports the change you want to make (see WP:RS), and use the article's talk page to convince editors who are reverting you, that the source you want to update the article with is more accurate, reliable, up to date, etc. Regards! Usedtobecool TALK  18:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
It's quite common for publicity machines to publish false years of birth to keep their celebrities young. If they manage to convince WP:Reliable sources, then Wikipedia sometimes accepts the younger version. Dbfirs 20:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Please help me to improve the page I have created[edit]

Hello dear Wikipedia users, I have created a page for a Georgian international football player and I could only add the general information. I have also added reliable sources that can confirm this information. The page is for Luka Gugeshashvili . please help me to make this page more complete and attractive. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachana28 (talkcontribs) 17:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

References when translating[edit]

When translating into Simple English or German form English, how do I handle references? Do they stay the same or can I just say it's a translation and exclude references for the original language? Help would be appreciated. TheDougster27 (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there TheDougster27. When translating articles, references can stay the same, but the parameters may need to be translated (let me check) do not need to be translated (see here. You will, however, need to add the 'language' parameter in like so:
{{cite web|url=|title=|language=|accessdate=}}

Here I have shown the citation with the required parameters, but with the language parameter included. Another example is:

{{cite web |url= |title=Honi soit qui mal y pense |last=Joliet |first=François |date=30 April 2005 |access-date=15 September 2019 |language=French |trans-title=Shame on those who think evil of it}}

Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


How do I become a proper editor for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveman 723 (talkcontribs) 18:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Steveman 723, welcome to Wikipedia. To edit Wikipedia, please see the Wikipedia:Adventure so that you can learn the basics before you start. Also, I would recommend you take the Tutorial. I hope that helps, if you have anymore questions, please do return and ask. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
You have been editing Wikipedia for nine months. You have not cited a source for any of the material you have added to Wikipedia. Please read about citing sources if you plan to become a proper editor.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Help needed with a university article.[edit]

Hi. First of all I'm not that familiar with the Wikipedia lingo so "explain like I'm five". Anyway I recently discovered that Government College University (Lahore)'s article had VERY limited/old info. I've updating the page for the last day or two, but then I found out that the article is not according to the article structure that WP has for university articles. (It has C for quality status) Being a student of said uni, I feel like its my duty to update/uphold the standards of the article. I realize that this is a MASSIVE do-over of the existing article. I trying to re-write the article according to the structure of this article, which is a good article. HOW DO YOU GUYS THINK I SHOULD PROCEED WITH THIS? Being a uni student, I know the whole deal about citations, plagiarism and neutral POV for papers. Do I just start to edit the page or make the to-be article in my sandbox and when its done, replace it? ---AsmiGCU (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AsmiGCU. You should pitch your proposal on the Talk page of the article. If nobody responds within a week's time, then feel free to be wp:BOLD.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Phishing in talk page?[edit]

Hi, I was notified of this edit [3] on a talk page, and it just looked very suspicious to me. Are you aware of this sort of thing? Thanks! – egaudrain (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Egaudrain. I don't think it was phishing, but I removed it. Please see WP:FORUM. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Cullen328. – egaudrain (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk page ban by Beyond My Ken[edit]

In this edit to my talk page Beyond My Ken made the following comment:

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This was after I made some comments on his talk page warning about his edit warring behaviour on two different articles.

As I have felt unfairly attacked by this editor in the past, I would have avoided placing any warnings at all, had it not been for the following notice on his talk page BMK is attempting to hold himself to a 2RR limit. Please contact him if you see him going past that.

As a matter of courtesy, I don't intend to make any more comments on this user's talk page, but as I am unable to clarify this directly, could someone tell me whether or not this is a unilateral ban he has imposed himself, and whether I am at risk of any administative sanctions if I place any comments at some point in the future. Additionally I was wondering whether there is any guidance I should read which would be helpful in this situation. Lmatt (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is a unilteral ban that I have imposed on you only in respect to my user talk page. You are not banned from responding to me on article talk page, on the talk pages of other users, on noticeboards, or anywhere else on Wikipedia, only on my talk page. These bans have been consistently upheld by administrative action, and users have been blocked from editing for violating them. My personal policy is that if I ban someone from my talk page, I will not post on theirs, unless similarly required to do so. I have, however, just posted an explanation on your talk page. That should be the last you'll hear from me there, although I will, of course, continue to monitor your contributions when necessary to protect Wikipedia from disruptive or harmful edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Lmatt. The way Wikipedia editors communicate with others is via talk pages. On article talk pages, no one particular editor controls things so only the Wikipedia community can decide whether to ban someone, etc. and pretty much posts are only removed/edited only when it's a serious/policies guideline violation like some of the examples given in WP:TPO. Individual user talk pages are, however, treated a bit differently. Even though nobody technically owns their user talk page per WP:UP#OWN, they're given the right to manage the page as they see fit as long as they do so in accordance with WP:BLANKING. Editors typically only "ban" other editors from posting when they feel that nothing constructive is going to come from any further interaction from them; they technically cannot prevent you from posting per WP:NOBAN, but they can just simply ignore or even remove what you post. So, if you find yourself in a situation like this, then the best thing to do is simply to refrain from posting anything on their user talk page, except when required to do so. Even though the "ban" might technically be more of a "strongly worded request" at this point, you'll gain nothing by continuing to post comments and may in turn lead the other editor to seek a more formal ban against you or even formal sanction for being disruptiveor tendentious. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

adding death date[edit]

Hi, How do I insert a date of death? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by P. Tobie B. (talkcontribs) 22:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

On which article? Do you have a citation from a reliable source to support the death date? If not, it's best not to post it untilyou do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I assume you were asking about Phyllis Newman. I've added a citation and put the death date in the infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Article Creation[edit]

Hi there,

I have a conflict of interest on a Wiki article that I believe is worth being created. I have put it into the Requested Articles section, but it was been there for a very long time!

The business is called Ethique and it is the worlds first zero waste full range beauty brand. It began in New Zealand and has since grown and is available across the world.

The founder of Ethique, Brianne West, has her own Wikipedia page, but that also needs updating. Both Brianne and Ethique are up for many awards in New Zealand and possibly more in the US and England within the next year.

I can attempt to write an article and submit it for approval - but after reading all the Wiki guidelines, I feel it is strongly suggested that I get someone else to write this.

Is there a better way I can go about having someone else create this article?

I'm happy to put suggested changes on Ethique's page without changing anything myself (due to conflict of interest).

If anyone is interested in attempting to write about it (it is VERY interesting and such a good business), then let me know and I can send through some sources to get you started :)

Thank you in advance!

Mazthecat (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Mazthecat, after making the necessary disclosures on your userpage, you can create the article through Articles for Creation. Once the article is in mainspace, you need to use the Edit Requests feature to request edits. Editors generally have a bad experience with COI editors trying to push bias, so I suggest you keep your edits as neutral as possible, have every request supported by reliable sources, and make each request quite brief. If it's likely to take a long time to review, it's likely that many editors who come across the request will skip it. Regards! Usedtobecool TALK  08:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a good hobby?[edit]

Hi everyone,

My name is Jim and I am thinking about registering an account. I have been looking for a good hobby to distract me from issues at home including a retarded child and unattractive wife. Of course, I have discussed my interests in joining Wikipedia with my family so they are aware that it could potentially consume a lot of my time and energy. What has been the experience of other editors here in terms of time commitment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B10E:E27:3D4A:B54E:DD8E:C632 (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jim. For some people, contributing to Wikipedia is little more than a fleeting interest, or even a joke; for others it has grown to become an all-consuming passion to build this great encyclopaedia. That can occupy as much or as little time as you wish, though we would never advocate it as a means to hide from one's real world challenges. Perhaps I could share three completely contrasting pages for you to read and consider? These are: Wikipedia:Tutorial, Wikipedia:Wikipediholic and Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia (and especially a subsection called WP:NOTHERE). Regards fron the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
One thing that I particularly enjoy is that there is no pressure as to when and where you edit. I feel like when I come on, I’m expected to conform to the policies but, apart from that, I don’t feel as if I’m expected to do anything else. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
To be brutally honest, if you have an addictive personality, be prepared for the possibility that it will take over your life. And since the community is very diverse, and has a fair number of editors who like to write and enjoy debate and argumentation, you should also be prepared to be annoyed, exasperated, frustrated and so totally fed up that you'll want to leave. And you will leave ... for a while, until you find yourself drifting back in, and before you know it you're hooked on editing again. (This is a fairly common pattern for many long-term editors.) So, if you have a thin skin, I wouldn't recommend Wikipedia as a hobby. However, that being said, the feeling of participating in a project that is helping to provide accurate information on an extremely large range of subjects is a wonderful one that keeps us all hanging on through the highs and the lows. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Incidentally, "retarded" is no longer acceptable language in polite society, and the more you think of your wife as unattractive, the more unattractive she'll be to you, but, then again, she may see you as unattractive as well, or boorish and ill-mannered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
(ec) My concern about your question is the way that you talk about your own family. I suspect trolling. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, so did I, but I've been taken to task so often for being uncivil, I hesitated to say so. In any case, my original response -- before I re-read the question and noticed its nature -- was a heartfelt one, so perhaps it will be useful for any real potential editors who happen to read it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
That is an excellent point, BMK. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it ("brutally honest") was well written and it matches my own view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability requirement[edit]

Capwell Wyckoff was an author in the 1920s-1950s.

He wrote series - mysteries that were very popular. Think Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew type stuff.

He was also a Presbyterian minister and travelled through the backwoods of Arkansas and Kentucky as Sunday School missionaries.

His books sell on eBay and one of the rare titles in good condition with a dust jacket will sell for hundreds of dollars when they are available which is seldom.

We would like to see an article on his books and life included in Wikipedia.

Does this sound like something that would be considered for publication? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8fultom (talkcontribs) 05:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gr8fultom. That depends entirely on whether or not you can find multiple reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this author, his life and his books. Start by reading Your first article and by gathering such sources. The most common type of sources for author biographies include book reviews, newspaper and magazine articles about the author's career; and for better known authors, biographies and studies of their work written by literary critics. Your job will be to cite those sources and summarize what they say. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I couldn't find much in an internet search, and a Google Scholar search turned up zilch (honestly a worse sign than the internet search in this case). If he's as popular as you say he was, you may be able to find articles in old magazines or newspapers, but finding these sources is not necessarily going to be easy.
The eBay thing is generally not a good sign for an author, as that would necessitate that the author's books are rare. On the other hand, if his books are a significant enough collector's item in their own right, you may be able to find something about him in publications that cover collecting/eBay/etc. signed, Rosguill talk 05:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

How long should hyperlink titles be?[edit]

There does not appear to be anything here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking about whether unjustified, unnecessary and really quite excessive amounts of words in a title is acceptable. I realise that the idea is to make Wikipedia accessible, but do we need to be writing sentence-long link titles to plainly explain every article we link to? Thanks for your advice, Vitreology (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Vitreology, WP:SURPRISE comes to mind. Sometimes, the flow of prose dictates expressing a linked article as a phrase. How many words to link depends on exactly which and how many words linked together would give the reader the impression of what the linked article is going to be about. For example, I keep needing to express 2013 Nepalese Constituent Assembly election as "the second constituent assembly election, in 2013." If I linked "election" only, it wouldn't be specific enough to prevent surprise in readers, "constituent assembly election" has the same problem. Linking "second constituent assembly election" is the least number of words, as I see it, that's specific enough. So, linking "the" as well as ", in 2013" would be unnecessarily long. That is the common sense judgement I make, I am not aware of other specific policy/rules on this either. Regards! Usedtobecool TALK  08:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Usedtobecool Thank for your reply. Can I please get your opinion on the first sentence here? Thanks, Vitreology (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I see no reason why the link shouldn't simply be the title of the linked article. If any reader does not know the meaning of incubation period they can simply click on the link.--Shantavira|feed me 09:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, in the general case, WP:JARGON says to Avoid excessive wikilinking (...) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations. In that particular case, I think "incubation period" is simple enough for us to expect a random reader to have a vague understanding of what it means, so wikilinking is OK, and I changed the sentence accordingly. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Vitreology, My thoughts, the subsequent comments here notwithstanding, would be that, in general, I agree that Incubation period is enough, and definitions can be added in parenthesis or as appositives if deemed necessary. However, since it's a medicine-related article (a sensitive subject) which has other instances of the same kind of thing, I would suspect that there could be written/unspoken consensus to do so within that project, and wouldn't revert Doc James (who's from what little I understand, essentially a Wikipedia God, for his contributions to the project, and possibly the most valuable contributor to medicine-related articles) without seeking an explanation first. Of course, that's just what I would (not) do personally, Wikipedia has no editor hierarchy when it comes to content. Usedtobecool TALK  10:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding Sections[edit]

Hello Teahouse friends,

I have been wondering how to add sections like profiles appearing on the right side of the page and also contents box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qproperties (talkcontribs) 08:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand your question, so you may need to clarify it. One of the things which often appears on the right hand side of a page is an infobox. For information on the table of contents, see WP:Table of contents. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)