Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 851

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Hello. I submitted a new article for review on July 6, 2018. It was initially reviewed and declined with recommendations for improvements. I made those improvements and resubmitted the article. I have confirmed that I did resubmit the article correctly. One of the Wikipedia editors did confirm that it meets the standard for notability and I believe it is written in a NPOV. Please review and advise me if the timeline for this review process is normal, or are there issues in play I am unaware of? Thank you very much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Steve_Leder EllenSheehy (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@EllenSheehy: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As there are thousands of drafts to review, and reviews are done by volunteers, it does take a long time to get through them. Please be patient- even though it is likely frustrating. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm doing this for a uni assignment. I've just recently submitted an article titled "Coffee flour" out of the "requested articles" list. Because English is not my first language, I desperately need help with the article. It would be great if someone can kindly review my article, perhaps check the style, grammar, and structure of it. Thanks so much! Evkgoh (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Evkgoh. Welcome to the Teahouse. I've left you a few cookies (normal flour, I'm afraid), along with a few welcoming links. As I see you've also submitted this article to Peer Review, it probably needs little input from us here as well. That said, it's not a bad article for a newcomer, so well done. Maybe a bit promotional in places. I would like you to address your use of capitalisation, please. This is extremely important in this article (above many others) because you've written that "Coffee Flour" is the name of a company, and that "coffee flour" is the product it makes. So lose the caps when talking about the product. (like Hoover and hoover - vacuum cleaner manufacturer; any type of vacuum cleaner). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters for guidance on use of capital letters here.

When you say"Many efforts have been made to handle the stink of mounds and honey water leftovers at the coffee mills, including catchment or composting, but the impact is small. It leads me to think you've done your best to avoid copyvios without actually considering what you're saying, or how the reader might perceive your sentences. "Perplexed" springs immediately to mind! One helpful trick when writing articles is to read them aloud to yourself. If you listen as you speak, or if you find yourself tripping yourself up as you try to read it, you know your sentences are not flowing quite as well as they ought. But please don't be put off; I think you've not done too badly at all. Oops, and I've just remembered you said that English isn't your first language, so actually you've done very well indeed. Try getting me to write in another language and the article would be deleted in no time at all, I can assure you! Hope this helps a bit. I'm off for a decaf coffee before going to bed! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm in the midst of a possible deletion on my page Trinbagonian nationalism. I would love to keep working on this page, and am hoping for help in improving it to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia. Any recommendations would be warmly received.--SammyJ1234 (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SammyJ1234 and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, do please feel free to improve your article whilst it is up for discussion. In fact, I urge you to do it! Waiting until it's too late to improve it would be a great shame. Having your efforts potentially thrown out by a seven day discussion can seem terribly hurtful and off-putting to any editor. You have my sympathy. But if you can take it as a challenge and listen to the criticism that editors make, and respond to it quickly, you stand a very good chance of improving the article to a point where it doesn't get deleted. The key things coming out are that it is rather essay-like and not encyclopaedic enough in its style, and that you've not cited any/many sources that use the phrase "Trinbagonian nationalism". We normally strongly discourage editors from bringing deletion discussions to the Teahouse, or any other forum for that matter but I do feel sorry that your attempts to improve the article by seeking input at Peer Review has possibly led to someone spotting it and trying to stamp on it, rather like a scary insect. I hope you'll forgive me for interfering with a topic I know nothing about, but I believe it would be helpful to retitle the article. But whilst it's under discussion for deletion, that would be inappropriate. But for now I have created a Redirect to it from Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago, and my recommendation will be to move it there after the decision is made to keep the article (which I am sure it will be). I do suggest you try to simplify some of the style of writing, add wikilinks to related topics and add more inline references. I'm surprised your article hasn't used some of the sources that come up whern you Google "Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago" If you can get hold of a copy, "Race and Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago: A study of Decolonization in A Multiracial Society by Selwyn D. Ryan" looks to be a seminal work on the topic. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

According to Earwigs Copyvio, this article is a copyvio Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thegooduser - I'm pinging Diannaa who is my go-to admin on copyvio issues. I can't access the one sight which is 62%, but this might be a case of WP:MIRROR. Need better expertise to take a look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I was able to access the source website using the Wayback Machine. The Season 1 plot description was copied from the network's website back in 2015. I have replaced it using material from an earlier revision. Thank you for reporting this problem. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, on Driving while black there is a section called Pretextual stop which is a redirect. I would like to take this paragraph out of this page and make it a separate page. A notice was given awhile back on the Talk page and nobody responded. So, is it OK if I just go ahead and do this? I'm new and don't want to step on anybody's toes! Seahawk01 (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Seahawk01 - as per WP:SIZESPLIT, the rule of thumb is that an article should have info split out if it is over 50k. This link shows that this article sits at slightly over 40k, so should most likely not be split out. Contextually, it also seems to make sense to include it in the discussion of the article's main topic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969 and thanks for the reply. Actually, I also rethought this...I would like to create a new page called Pretextual stop, leave the paragraph on Driving while black, and then under the heading on that page have a link to the new page. Also, I would like to remove the redirect for this topic. Will this be OK? Thanks for the advice! Seahawk01 (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Seahawk01 -If you can develop the topic beyond what is in the current section, then of course it would be okay. My point was that to simply remove the current short paragraph to create a separate article wouldn't meet WP:SPLIT. And I think that the topic goes beyond what is covered by Driving while black, since many of the instances of this have nothing to do with race. My suggestion would be to create a draft, and then when you have it developed enough, replace the redirect with your article. Or put a {{construction}} on the article as you work on it. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969. Thanks again for your help. I probably won't get a draft together right away, but it is good to now have a game plan on how to approach the matter. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This is another stepping on toes question. On Wikipedia:Splitting it states that over 50 kB an article should be considered for splitting. I would like to work on Economic inequality, but it is huge! I think it is 202 kB. I just left a note on the Talk page that I would like to split it. On the Splitting page, it says I can be bold, but...I'm not that bold, yet. Do you think I should just split the page or try to notify some more people first? Seahawk01 (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

As an editor, my advice is "Yes, go ahead. The article needs splitting, and for two years has had a tag at the top saying so." As a fellow human, my advice is "No. It'll be far more work than you're expecting, and no-one will thank you for it." Maproom (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Maproom for the practical advice! I contacted everyone who has edited the page in the past month and invited them to Talk:Economic_inequality to build consensus. Hopefully, someone else with take the leap and divide the page. Also, I contacted the following groups: WikiProject Capitalism, WikiProject Economics and WikiProject Libertarianism. Seahawk01 (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Maproom. I think we have a split in progress. All interested parties have been notified. A discussion has been started. I placed a new split notice at the top and two proposed splits in the article. I will wait until next week to go ahead with any editing. As a side note, I think, since this is such a hot button issue, it attracted lots of people offering a tremendous number of angles on causes and effects, which made it balloon to such huge proportions. I'm not sure if splitting it will tame this. On the other hand, it really should be a well-developed article as a point of reference for people. It needs a good editor watching over it (not me, of course). Seahawk01 (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and I just submitted my first article; however, it got denied. The reason was that the article sounded more like an advertisement. I wrote about Dr. Gabe Mirkin and I would like some help on how to look for reliable resources that Wikipedia will accept. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baladtheimpaler (talk • contribs) 2018-10-24T22:54:19 (UTC)

I've made a start on copy-editing the draft (I've covered the first four paragraphs), but there's a lot that still needs doing. All the direct external links will have to go. And the most important issue is that the draft cites no references. 28 sources are listed, and the better ones may be good enough to establish that Mirkin is notable; I haven't checked. But they need to be cited from within the article. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I just can't find the answer anywhere. I saw it on a tv show from 1990's in Canada. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.60.189.65 (talk • contribs)

That's not really the function of this page, but to answer your question I think you're misunderstandingfor the most part, all of Canada can be an aerodrome (my emphasis) in the AIM. It's not that all of Canada was declared one giant airport; it's that, under Canadian law, anyone preparing an aircraft landing site is legally considered to have created an aerodrome (so if you clear the junk out of your back yard so a helicopter can land, you've created an aerodrome), so it's theoretically possible to create an aerodrome anywhere on Canadian soil. ‑ Iridescent 08:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I read in the article sited above that ZORROASTER, (The Founder of the Relion sited above) may have lived around the time of Jesus Christ. My question is: DID HE EVER MENTION CHRIST (CHRISTIANITY) OR HAVE ANY SCHOLARS OR ARCHEOLOGIST WRITTEN ANY MATERIAL CONNECTING THE TWO IN ANY WAY?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:5151:BE00:1090:22F8:5C80:3BE1 (talk • contribs)

@2606:A000:5151:BE00:1090:22F8:5C80:3BE1:. You may want to ask this question at Wikipedia:Reference desk, which is designed to handle general knowledge questions like this. The Teahouse is really designed for new users who have questions on how to use Wikipedia. --Jayron32 17:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

...however, you read wrong. Our article about Zoroaster states that he lived around a millenium before JC (there is some disagreement as to when exactly, but it is pretty clear that it was before the 5th century BCE). If anything, Zoroastrianism influenced Christianity, not the other way around. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

In checking the wiki on Frederick Douglass, I discovered links to two different pages that refer to the same speech by different titles. The Speech is available online here: Frederick Douglass, Oration, Delivered in Corinthian Hall, Rochester, July 5th, 1852. Rochester: Lee, Mann &co., 1852. Frederick Douglass Project. University of Rochester. [1]. It is titled "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July" in the print volumes of the Frederick Douglass papers, and was delivered on July 5, 1852. The two pages are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_to_the_Slave_Is_the_Fourth_of_July%3F and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hypocrisy_of_American_Slavery. I think the former should be preferred and the latter deleted or converted to a disambiguation page but I'm not sure how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulick (talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi unnamed editor (and I couldn't discern who added this from the article history). I think your best bet is to request a merge of the latter article into the former. I would also suggest that the verbiage in the first article's lead be changed to reflect that while some consider it untitled, that it is titled in the FD papers. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. How do I request a merge? Signature added! Meg Zulick 13:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I submitted a draft more that two months ago, and I understand that reviewing takes time. However, I am not able to find my draft in the Category:Pending AfC submissions, it is just not visible. Is there any possibility that my wikitext is lacking some code and how to fix that to make my draft visible for potential editor? I will be grateful for any advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suresh D Sarada (talk • contribs)

Suresh D Sarada Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. Your draft is definitely in Category:Pending AfC submissions - the category is listed in the bottom of Draft:Skand_Bali, and you can see it in this list. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I am a new user, I just created an account with Wikipedia and in need to change my user name. How can I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaphama Marabela (talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Phaphama Marabela: Per Wikipedia:Changing username, "Users who have made very few edits are encouraged to register a new account and discard the old one. You can even copy your old watchlist to your new account. See Wikipedia:Clean start for additional rules and details." —BarrelProof (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

My apologies if this question has been asked. I am a student living in India and new to the wiki community. Here is some detail about my topic -

'Rugra' is a type of mushroom that grows in parts of Jharkhand, India. It is very rare and only harvested after the rains. Since this edible mushroom is limited to this area (where English is not spoken much, nor much internet penetration), there is not much documentation about it. There are blogs that talk about the cleaning and cooking process, however, I read in Wiki guidelines that using blog as a reference would not be correct as it is not noteworthy.

I request your advice to figure out how to proceed to create a page for this (if I am correct in thinking this warrants a page).

Thank you!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SeraneNorton (talk • contribs) 06:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello SeraneNorton, and welcome to the Teahouse! You have grasped clearly one of WP:s limits, if there are no reliable sources (as in WP:RS), "we" wont have an article on it. So it's possible that a WP-acceptable article on this mushroom can't be written, in which case I'd advise you to choose another topic. However, on google books I quickly found [2] and [3] so there may be sources out there you haven't found, and they don't have to be online or in English. Try asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink, you may find interested editors there. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"Rugra" is a species of Geastrum. If we knew which species, we could check whether Wikipedia has an article on it. If there's already an article, information could be added to it. If there isn't one, an article could be created, with the botanical name as its title - I believe (though I can't find a guideline that says so) that any multicellular species is notable. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia:Notability (natural sciences), but not that helpful (because "failed"). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Geastrum fornicatum? Really? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance, Gråbergs Gråa Sång . I will do a more thorough research before attempting to write this article. SeraneNorton (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SeraneNorton: Remember that, if this is a truly wild mushtoom, there will probably be a page about the species under its scientific name. So, avoid the temptation of creating an unnecessary page which will later have to be merged with it. From a quick search, its seems to be a local term applied to one or perhaps two species of Geastrum. (http://www.ijset.net/journal/495.pdf See this). I was surprised by this as I had always understood the earthstars to be an inedible group. Good luck with researching this, and in gaining the remaining 14 badges of The Wikipedia Adventure. And do remember to sign your posts with four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~). Regards fom the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nick Moyes . I only ever knew it by our common local name, and am happy to see that it is indeed part of Geastrum . I will take your advice to contribute to the existing page. I would like to add some referenced details about the edible nature of 'rugra' as it is quite a unique delicacy in Jharkhand. Thank you for the time you have taken to advise me. - SeraneNorton (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@SeraneNorton: I would urge you not to edit the page for the genus Geastrum until you have confirmed which species your local fungus actually is. I say this because the group as a whole is known for being inedible, though not actually seriously toxic. It would be very unfortunate to imply the opposite. This sounds like an unusual exception to the rule, so we would not want to mislead anyone. Regards, 14:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I just started a page on a thing that no one worked on... and suddently got it deleted because of vandalism and incoherent text... While I checked and no one made something about it... how come so ?... Also, why did they do so ?... —SneezyReus (talk)

The draft was deleted either under G1 or G3 criteria, but that includes blatant hoaxes, not just vandalism. Your User page has "The only page that I created was about this thing that my family talks legends about draft:skuupa." Especially for fictional or mythological beings, published references written by other people are essential. Otherwise, this is just your family's story. Also, your User page is for a few facts about your intent to be a Wikipedia editor. Maybe best if you delete the 'Skuupa' incident and chalk it up to experience. David notMD (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, here I am, I guess. I tried submitting a draft about the Italian Disney artist and writer Casty (Andrea Castellan), which was rejected (which I then used elsewhere, to very positive reactions I may add...). I completely re-wrote the article from scratch, but am at a loss when it comes to adding references - and this was the reason it was rejected again. Realistically, how often do you find articles about cartoonists in newspapers or on institutional websites? Under such strict regulations you may as well throw out 90% of the already existing articles about cartoonists. Most of the information about these people, and most of the critical reception, simply takes place on blogs, fan sites, review portals, and the like. That does to me not equal that they are not notable. I also made a draft in my userspace for Massimo De Vita but stopped working on it for the same reasons.

These guys are not simply some no-name creators; they have been celebrated for years and when you look at the fan ratings on Inducks, they are clearly on the same plane as Carl Barks, Floyd Gottfredson, Don Rosa and the other Disney artists that already have in-depth Wikipedia articles. (I bet these didn't start out as perfect articles either...)

Now a) I don't really get why I am hit with a very harsh interpretation of the rules when I've seen lots of articles that were/are much more flawed, but received no complaints, b) I would never write anything that I simply made up out of thin air (I'm just miserable at remembering where I read the stuff I'm writing) and c) maybe somebody else could help me to find more sources? Problem is that these are Italian artists and I don't read Italian. Going through every article with Google Translate is not really something I have time or patience for.

In general, I find it very difficult to apply Wikipedia's guidelines in the same way to artists as to politicians, sportsmen or other public figures - for all the reasons I cited above, plus the fact that art is obviously subjective.

Any help is dearly appreciated.Jules TH 16 (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jules TH 16, and welcome! The criteria are generally the same, that the subject should be covered substantially by multiple sources that are reliable and independent of the article subject. Fan ratings, popularity, etc., don't factor in at all to whether we should or should not have an article on something. All articles require references, but we are especially strict on that when it comes to the biography of a living person. Blogs and fan sites are generally not reliable, but reviews, dependent on where they come from, might be. If solid reference material actually doesn't exist, the subject is not a suitable one for an article and your efforts would be better spent on another subject. If you have questions about using a particular source, you can ask here, or check at the reliable sources noticeboard. Try a search before asking there, many sources have already been discussed at that board. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Jules TH 16: as you've found, that's how the rules work. Yes, it's tough on cartoonists. Another such unfortunate category is stunt doubles. Maproom (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The fan ratings are in accordance with the older cartoonists already covered on Wikipedia, though, and they are in agreement with the general consensus among fans and critics (which are mainly bloggers in this case...). It's just that the more recent or less-published-in-English haven't been covered here (although there are references to them on other Wikipedia pages, which reinforces my point to a degree).

And I beg to disagree; it's the fans who search out the artists and often you'll find the best and most interesting interviews (which contain things like biographical data) on fan-run sites. Especially in the case of Disney, where the heads of the company does not seem to care one bit about the people creating comics for them (this is covered extensively in the excellent Don Rosa article, by the way).

Or take music reviews; most of the ones found in newspapers or magazines are USELESS! Superficial, uninformed, factually wrong; you name it. Then you have somebody like Paul Sinclair, an independent blogger who has already written liner notes and compiled things for big record companies, yet always maintained his critical abilities and writes long, in-depth, honest reviews, for which he gets hundreds of positive comments... and I'm sure he still doesn't meet the guidelines simply because he's a Blogger. I understand keeping "fake news" out but this is where things are moving to. Newspapers are on the way out.

I don't know what's up with Wikipedia in general, it seemed to be a completely different animal when I first visited it and made my first edits (years ago). I'm sure many articles have improved greatly, but other topics are suffering from such amounts of beaurocracy. And as I pointed out in my disclaimer, I'm only interested in writing about things that interest me - or more correctly, things I would have liked to see when I was looking for information on things/people myself. Now if somebody comes across one of the Casty comics just recently released in the US, they will have to search around endlessly to find bits & pieces about the man on various blogs and forums. I wanted to make it easier for people like these... (the Italian wiki article, by the way, contains far less information than my draft and doesn't even contain ONE single reference!)

As it is, I won't be writing any more articles at this point since nobody is willing to offer me any actual help. I always thought I could submit a draft, as good as I'm capable of, and somebody else could help to smooth things out. Turns out that is not the case. Why is it I have to do this all on my own? Isn't this supposed to be a community? I'm sorry but I have neither the time, nor the bandwidth, nor the patience, nor the strength to wade through the literally hundreds of guidelines, regulations and abbreviations. Although English isn't my first language, I normally understand pretty much everything. Not here though. I guess you're right and I should probably be getting myself off wikipedia to avoid further headaches and from feeling like being in a Kafka story (and yes, I've nicked that one from another paragraph on this page). Yours sincerely, frustrated Jules TH 16 (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

As you noted, you want to edit things that interest you. Almost everybody else you encounter here are the same, and if you don't find anybody with similar interests, you are on your own, at least for the time being. You can try to find editors with similar interests at "places" like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney. And if you consider the en-WP environment too constrictive ("we" will very rarely accept WP:USERGENERATED sources for example), consider working on or starting a Wikia wiki or blog. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Pouvez-vous m'aider à créer une page et me dire un peu d'anglais.

Merci beaucoup!

Hjik hljio purt (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Bonsoir, Hjik hljio purt, et bienvenue a la maison du thé. (And that's about as far as my schoolboy French gets me.) Because this is the English Wikipedia, all our dealings here must be in English. If you want to write about a notable topic, you should read Wikipedia:Your first article which will guude you. If your English skills are similar to my abilities with the French language, then you might be best off creating your page there, instead. But if you want help to translate a page into English from another wiki, please see this helpful guide. Bon chance! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Hjik hljio purt::

Translation: Could you help me create a page and tell me a little English. Thanks a lot.

Qu'est-ce que tu essayes de faire?

What are you trying to do?

Créer une article en anglais?

To make an article in English?

Une article à propos de quoi?

An article about what?

Si tu veux écrir une article en français, tu peux l'écrir a Wikipédia en français.

If you want to write an article in French, you can do that at .

Note: you appear to have written a different question below and signed it with a different name. I had written this answer before you did so, so I'm replying to this question anyway but... please don't make fake signatures. Also, that username looks similar to an insult in Spanish, so you probably want to stop using this account and create one with a better name. – Pretended leer {talk} 16:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I misread that, you were trying to sign that comment. The correct way to do that is adding {{unsigned|their name}}

@Hjik hljio purt:: Sorry for writing like you had written the other comment. I misread the diff. Désole, je n'avais pas lis bien le diff, et j'ecrit que tu avais écrit ce question que Hodarima avait écrit.

Ton nom est assez similaire au une insulte en espagnol ("hijo de puta"). Peut-être tu devrais le changer. Your username is somewhat similar to an insult in Spanish, you might want to change it. – Pretended leer {talk} 16:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay I will change it Hjik hljio purt (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to review articles with the template above. Filtering: article names containing "(Unix)". Sorted by age descending. Is this possible? Many thanks. --Hundsrose (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hundsrose. It's a short list so the sorting is not important: intitle:Unix hastemplate:"One source". PrimeHunter (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello PrimeHunter, thanks a lot, exactly what I needed. :) --Hundsrose (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I have written a "first-stab" at an article to describe something that is not described anywhere on Wikipedia or any other reference publication. It is a bit obscure...but would be a valuable listing to anyone investigating the possible use of this material. Would you please look at this and guide me on how to get it published? Any help you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Here it is:

Bob K

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertKaynes (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi RobertKaynes, and welcome to the Teahouse! Sorry, but "not described anywhere on Wikipedia or any other reference publication" makes WP the wrong place for this. What we do here is summarizing stuff that has been written in reliable sources. Other stuff we call Wikipedia:No original research and WP:SYNTH and kick it out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! I recently created Oval Office Tapes and realized the podcast is called The Oval Office Tapes instead of just Oval Office Tapes. Is there a way to fix this and add the word "the" to the title? Please advise the easiest way to correct this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgelberg007 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done It's a move, which you do from the More > Move tab on top. I did it for you. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much! This is perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgelberg007 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a setting in the Preferences to force me to add a summary comment after an edit? I find myself forgetting to add the summary comment when I actually need to add one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosXing (talk • contribs)

Hi CarlosXing, welcome to the Teahouse. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing has: "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". PrimeHunter (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter for your reply. I have set that preference. It does not work for me. I have made several attempts with variations such as changing browsers (chrome and IE), logging out and logging in. I even rebooted. I have made multiple tests on my user page. Wikipedia publishes without a prompt. Do you have any other suggestions? ... UPDATE: It worked when I attempted to publish this comment. I do not know why it would not work before, but I will take it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosXing (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have an interest in a couple articles that I think are in need of cleanup/merging. Cobra is a stub that has high priority in the reptiles project, so I was going to add some relevant information. However, upon arriving it appears to just be a list of animals that are not part of the "True Cobra" family (Naja) that are named "Cobra", the most ridiculous example therein is the False water cobra (the "false" in the name of course refers to "Cobra" not "water"). To me, this page makes much more sense as a sub-section on the cobra (disambiguation) page, and forwarding traffic from "Cobra" to "Naja" as is commonly done with other genus with a common name. Does this seem reasonable?

Cheers, Mstearnsa (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Mstearnsa

I think the status quo is reasonable. The cobra article is a WP:Set index article, since "cobra" generally refers to a "cobra" snake, and unfortunately there is no single taxonomic group of snakes that fits that name. Naja doesn't contain them – a prime example being the king cobra, which may be the most well known "cobra" of them all. It is not in Naja, and there are various other "cobras" that are also not in Naja (e.g., the ring-necked spitting cobra, the shield-nosed cobra, the black tree cobra, and Goldie's tree cobra). The article also very clearly distinguishes the false water cobra from the others – e.g., it does not include that species in its list of "cobras" and instead discusses it separately, below the list. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

My only problem is that, as a high priority page in the reptiles project and extremely high in the Africa project, it seems kind of ridiculous for it to be a stub. Because the species listed have very few similar traits, it's difficult to piece together information about a group so general. Maybe I could make it more like wasp in that it could have the history of the general "cobra" relationship with humans. Cheers, Mstearnsa (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Mstearnsa

I don't think it's a stub. It's a WP:Set index article. It's not marked as a stub. I don't think set index articles need to be lengthy, since their purpose is primarily to list other articles rather than to contain extensive discussions. I think all of the species discussed there are venomous elapids, except the one that is called "false" (which is venomous, but not an elapid). Most of them are highly venomous and primarily neurotoxic. They are all relatively thin-bodied and most of them also rear up and/or produce a hood. I think it is the combination of such characteristics that leads to the use of the common name "cobra". The basic problem is that "cobra" is a "common name" term rather than a scientific classification, so it does not align perfectly to the taxonomic classifications. It might also be better to have this discussion at Talk:Cobra rather than here. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Talk:Cobra is frequented... by anyone. Speaking of Talk:Cobra though, this is the very first thing on the page: "Cobra has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Biology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as stub-Class." I'm just trying to help by improving the pages that appear to be marked for improvement... Mstearnsa (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Mstearnsa

Hi! I got a message based on my IP that something happened to some text i may have edited in the past though i don't understand what it is or why or where do i find the URL to that said page nor do i remember the page itself i edited, nor am i the author of said page. It's the only time i ever edited something at all, i did a correction on a misspelled word i believe but i can't seem to remember either the word nor the topic the page is about. I looked up User "FeatherPlume" here on Wikipedia who would apparently have been unsatisfied with anything on said article there it said the User had been suspended.

I do not have the slightest clue of what is even going on. I'd be happy to get enlightened on the matter if at all possible. Thanks much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.119.92.6 (talk)

Hello! This is the only edit from this IP, so it's hard to give a good answer. However, IP:s change and shift around, so it may be that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It seems someone made an Articles for creation request that got denied and later deleted after a period of inactivity. I can't see the IP or username that created the request, but I can see the log entry for the deletion:

• 23:02, 26 November 2014 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GBC Gold Backed Coin (G13: Abandoned AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13)

The Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) was made of links, but I'm leaving them unlinked so that this reply doesn't show up as a message to them. – Pretended leer {talk} 17:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

As an administrator I can see edits to deleted pages and the IP does have old edits. The message at User talk:91.119.92.6 is from 2014 where somebody else probably had your current IP address. Just ignore it. The box at the bottom of the page says: "This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users." The IP address 91.119.99.47 created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GBC Gold Backed Coin in 2014. It was edited and resubmitted by 91.119.92.6 a month later. The submission was declined and the page was later deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Avoid in future by becoming a registered user. David notMD (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

good day and thank for the opportunity

I have created the personal biography on wikkipedia but whem Im searching the name via google I cannot see it,is there any help to make it happens on google searching engeen? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodarima (talk • contribs) 16:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Hodarima - welcome to the Teahouse. So far, you have drafted an incomplete page about yourself as a DRC politician. This is in your 'sandbox' - a special please each user has to work on preparing content. Sandboxes are not indexed by Google, so you will not find it by searching for your name. You would needd to work on this and base it purely on independent published soiurces if you really expected it to go into the main encyclopaedia. Whilst not totally banned, Wikipedia very strongly discourages editors from creating pages about themselves. Not only are editors unlikely to be able to write in a neutral, encyclopaedic manner about themselves, they are also unlikely to want to include negative media articles about themselves - though they will have no right to remove them if they do exist, as nobody owns pages here. As a politician, you might find this potentially awkward. So you might like to read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for some idea why we do discourage self-promotion.

I have left you a welcome message on your talk page related to autobiographical drafts, but I would also ask you to read how to declare a Conflict of Interest, which you should really make clear on your main user page. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Why isnt my page published, when I search on google for the wikipedia that I created it says that id doesent exist?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emibekaa (talk • contribs)

Hard to say, your account has not created or edited any articles. What article are we talking about? Or did you mean something different? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Emibekaa, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you refer to User:Emibekaa/sandbox. Userspace pages (pages starting with "User:" or "User talk:") are not indexed by external search engines like Google. This is the English Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org. An Albanian page belongs at the Albanian Wikipedia https://sq.wikipedia.org. I don't know their policies but I guess they want sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, Emibekaa, English Wikipedia very strongly discourages writing about yourself: see AUTOBIOGRAPHY. I don't know the policies of sq Wikipedia, but I would be surprised if that was different. --ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This entry seemed quite clear and lucid until I reached the short section on Communication Studies. The lone sentence in the second graf is a dangling phrase. Since philosophy is not my field at all I do not want to post an edit, but I venture this guess: that the first word "When" should be edited out, and then it is a sentence. I do not have resources to check whether it would be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinThorson (talk • contribs) 02:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, JustinThorson thank you for bringing this to our attention. I've fixed the article, but there are two things worth saying:

• Concerns over content are often best left on the article's own talk page, where interested/involved editors are most likely to see it
• A good tip when you find an error like this is simply to go to the View History tab and look at an earlier version in case there had been some accidental or intentional damage done to the article.

In this case, the 'dangling phrase' had gone unnoticed for well over a year. I had to go back to this version from Christmas 2016 to find the original sentence which should have read:When, in the 1970s and 1980s, Jürgen Habermas redefined critical social theory as a theory of communication, i.e. communicative competence and communicative rationality on the one hand, distorted communication on the other, the two versions of critical theory began to overlap to a much greater degree than before.

Hope this helps, and that you've now the tools to spot and correct such mistakes yourself. Sorry for the long wait for a reply. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise for my copy in the article that i created and i hope that to would not repeat it again. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunging (talk • contribs) 02:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries, Dunging. It's great that you appreciate where you went wrong; listening to the advice of other editors is a great attribute for new editors here. Thank you for stopping by the Teahouse. (Please may I ask you to sign all future talk page posts? You simply do this by typing four keyboard tildes (like this:~~~~) at the very end, and the software automatically adds your username and a timestamp. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm creating now my first article's draft and I need some help with how good it's and if it's good enough to move to mainspace Draft:Smartworks, Hope you all enjoying your day Rou-2 (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you offer to help me, please? Rou-2 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rou-2, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry you've had a long wait for a response from us here. Although well structured and laid out as an article, I suspect it would not survive for long in mainspace as it's hard to see how it meets our criteria of notability for companies. You can read these criteria at this link. Your article is typical of many I see which seem aimed at promoting the company, and are wholly based on insider business websites, rather than demonstrating notability with good, in-depth coverage in independent sources. A minor point is that you've used a few poor wikilinks to Disambiguation pages. see  Indian, Amazon, Carrier and Otis. If you work for, or have been paid by, the company, you must declare this (see Conflict of Interest) and this policy on declaring any paid work. Best wishes Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Nick Moyes, It's ok about waiting for a response as long as it will be useful and helpful. I did not mean to promote for the company, also nor did I get paid to write this article so will listen to your advice and have a look at Indian, Amazon, Carrier and Otis. to decide if i will continue working on it or not. thank you for advice it's really inspired. Rou-2 (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Is The Sun OK?

Pretty much no, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. On WP there's always the question for what/in what context, but no is the very likely answer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources have professional editorial control, and have have a good reputation for accuracy, fact checking and error correction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, yesterday I fixed a blacklisted link notification. It took me about two minutes to change it into a book citation instead. The notification was pretty big, on top of the page and two years old. Is there a list of all pages that have this warning? I would like to spend some time helping out Wikipedia by making corrections. Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Please give a link to what you are talking about. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This was the notice I fixed:

{{Blacklisted-links|1=http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Pigou/pgEW8.html'Triggered by <code>\beconlib\.org\b</code> on the local blacklist''|bot=Cyberbot II|invisible=false}}

Hello, Seahawk01. A list of these pages can be found at Category:Tagged pages containing blacklisted links. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi NotTheFakeJTP, perfect, thanks for the help! Seahawk01 (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I want to know how to nominate an article for deletion. Hamim000000 (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Hamim000000. See WP:Guide to deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I went into the editing the source code instead of using the Visual Editor. I highlighted a code that looked like {{ref}} or close to it. Then I hit ENTER key. It wiped the code out.

How can I replace the code?

Thanks,

Bodvar Antonio Gregersen--Bodvar Antonio Gregersen (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bodvar Antonio Gregersen, welcome to the Teahouse. Special:Contributions/Bodvar Antonio Gregersen shows no edits since August. Which page are you referring to? See Help:Reverting for general help. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Prime Hunter,

My Wikipedia page is General Juan Francisco Morales Llerena.

Right now the first 9 references are evenly aligned on the left and are evenly aligned on the right. However, the #10 reference goes underneath an image on the left side and stops at the left margin. In other words, it does not stay lined up and squared with the other 9 references.

I cannot center the list of references between two images where one image is left=centered and the other image is right-centered. And the list of references are between the two images.

I have just about finished inputting and editing the web site, except for squarely centering the list of references.

Also, when I go to editing the list of reference, I get a message that the reference section cannot be edited with the Visual Editor and that I must edit the source code. What does {{Listaref}} mean and how does one use it to edit the reference section when I go to the source code.

If you go to the website, you will get a better idea of what I am trying to do.

Thank you.

Bodvar Antonio Gregersen--Bodvar Antonio Gregersen (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bodvar Antonio Gregersen: I copied your above post from my talk page. Please keep discussion in one place. Click the "Edit" link at a section heading to continue the discussion. This is the English Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org. I guess you refer to es:Juan Francisco Morales Llerena at the Spanish Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bodvar Antonio Gregersen: I examined all your 25 October edits in the page history [4] and didn't find any removal of ref code. References are usually edited in the article section where they are used and not where they are displayed in a references section. {{Listaref}} at the Spanish Wikipedia only tells where to display them. Each Wikipedia language makes its own policies and guidelines. I don't know the image policy of the Spanish Wikipedia. Here in the English Wikipedia we wouldn't display an image to the left of the references, and our Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Horizontal placement warns against sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages that face each oth­er. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Another thing, here at the English Wikipedia we wouldn't use |center (|centro in Spanish) to center a narrow image. It causes a lot of whitespace around the image. And we would place image code for a right or left aligned image at the start of the relevant article text. Then the text flows next to the image. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

David notMD here. I always stay logged in. But in a moment of distraction, I logged out. Back when there was that "your password may be compromised" event, I had changed my password, but did not write it down in a secure place. To compound this problem, when I tried to use the recover password process, it appears that I had not registered an email address for my account, so entering either my User name or either of my email addresses does not send me a message with my password or a temporary password. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.127.202 (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry. But without an email there is no way to recover your account. Sorry. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

David notMD here. Anyone else have a different take on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.127.202 (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2018‎ (UTC)

Thegooduser is correct. 331dot (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

David notMD here. Now I'm sad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.127.202 (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2018‎ (UTC)

AND I'M BACK!!!. I have a folder with a page of passwords (very 20th century techno-peasant). My old Wikipedia password was crossed out. For some reason I had written the new one on the back, where it is the only thing on the back. Anyway, Hi. David notMD (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

David notMD, have you enabled an email address so that you have options in the future?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You might also want to look at Wikipedia:Committed identity. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Added email address to my preferences this morning. David notMD (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to use the {{RP}} template in some new editing, but right now it is not working. It does not list the page numbers. My previous uses, several years ago, are still working just fine. The documentation is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Rp. What is the problem and how can it be solved? I put up a discussion at the Talk page over there. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Replied there. Seems to be working as documented. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)