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

How to pin a section at a talk page and prevent bot from archiving it

I would like to know how exactly can an editor create a pinned section in a talk page which is excluded from archiving by bots. Thanks -- Kmoksha (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I originally thought you meant your own user talk page, which you are free to configure as you wish, but I see that you do not have archiving set up on User talk:Kmoksha. I saw notifications in the history that refer to archiving of Teahouse questions. If that is what you are referring to, the short answer is "you can't" (as far as I know). Archiving for this page is configured to keep the page at a manageable size by archiving threads that have ceased to be active. Currently, that seems to be threads not posted to for 48 hours. Perhaps whoever last configured it will comment, but it currently has 46 sections and many, many full-size browser pages of text. I suggest, when receiving notification that your thread was archived, you copy the link from the archive message (e.g. [1]) to a list in your userspace somewhere like User:Kmoksha/Archived discussions. Maybe there's a helper script to do this somewhere (anybody?). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
AlanM1 Thanks for your response. Please assume that the editor wants to do things in good faith. I do not intend to be disruptive, so obviously I would not do it in TeaHouse forum. I would like to use it for my own talk page and for Article Talk page with agreement of other editors. On own talk page, I could later use an archiving bot and use this feature to exclude some sections from being archived. Similarly, there can be sections which all editors would agree for being pinned and not being archived by bot.
I saw this template - Template:Pin section but the instructions in it are not clear. It says "Place {{subst:pin section}} or {{subst:pinsec}} at the top of a talk page section." But the "top" means above the section title ? My question is regarding formatting. -- Kmoksha (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry you feel I got it wrong, but I wasn't implying anything about motive. I didn't have much to go on, and explained my mind-reading. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
As to the question, it appears to mean after the section title (before the section title would put it in the previous section). E.g., User talk:Pine#Motivations for editing. I've clarified the doc. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this what you're after? {{Do not archive until}} You can set any date on it. - X201 (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Missed the bit about Pin section being a wrapper of this. - X201 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Usage example, a pinned RFC on the reliable sources noticeboard: A fake signature by a fake user with a future timestamp in an invisible comment <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 18:13, 4 January 2030 (UTC) --> for the bot and a {{Pin message}} for the humanoids. – (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Kmoksha, please tell us exactly what you are talking about, with a link to the "Talk" space page you want to do this on. John from Idegon (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks X201 The template you gave can be useful along with the one which I found - {{subst:pin section}}. I can use it for my user talk page. John from Idegon I got what I was looking for. Thanks by the way. -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Editing and expanding an existing article

I want to expand the existing article on Light Rail in Bristol, giving more of the historic context. My problem is that I am the source of the material because I was the project manager for the scheme in the 1990s.I have donated the supporting documents to the Bristol City Archive. Am I in danger of falling foul on the rules on self promotion, and the lack of published references (the documents were in the public domain at the time of scheme development, and I have a full list of them)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSWC8230 (talkcontribs) 12:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Light rail in Bristol David notMD (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, KSWC8230, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's great that you want to contribute to an article; but, unfortunately,'s core principle of verifiability means that every claim in an article must be backed up by a reliably published source. (It's not an absolute requirement that the source be cited, but if it can't be sourced, then it shouldn't be in the article). So I'm afraid that, unless the information you want to add can be found in a published source, you shouldn't add it. The problem is that, because may be edited by anybody, information can get changed, by accident, by a misunderstanding, or maliciously, and if there is no published source, then a reader has no way of checking it.
I fear that renders your second question irrelevant, but I'll answer it anyway: adding references to your own publications is indeed regarded as editing with a conflict of interest, and editors in this situation are recommended to suggest the addition, and leave it up to an uninvolved editor to decide what is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine: thanks for your quick response. I had anticipated what the reaction to my queries might be, but it does seem to me to produce a bit of a paradox. I am able to write on this subject authoritatively, given I spent ten years in the middle of it, and have had the benefit of the documents relating to the project (not written by me, I should have explained, but mainly by the expert consultants employed for the purpose - and not referring to me personally). Copies of these documents (which I have deposited with the Bristol City Archive) were available at the time for public scrutiny, under transparency rules, but not published in the everyday sense of the word. So that seems to mean that I cannot at this time rely on them, or indeed my own first-hand experience. However, they will shortly be available via the Archive's website, together with a note requested from me by the Archivist making the links between them. Will that material be verifiable in's definition? (I should also add that I do not dispute anything in the existing article on this subject, but it is a bit "bare bones" in regard to the early historyKSWC8230 (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC).)

Once the documents you mentioned are made available, you can also post the links in the article's Talk Page and request willing editors to help you with the content or any specific information you want added. I can include this page to my Watchlist. Maybe I can contribute with the provided sources if I have time. Doing it yourself could be a waste of your efforts due to the COI issue previously cited. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

How am I doing?

Can an experienced admin take a look at my contributions and advise me what I'm doing right and where I need to improve? Thanks :-) 5JVL9 (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The only edit of yours I have checked was to Loring Park, where you deleted a sentence from the lead section with the edit summary "Remove redundant information found in events section." Lead sections are meant to summarise the rest of the article: the information in them should always be redundant. I suggest that you replace what you deleted. (I am not an admin.) Maproom (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello there, 5JVL9, and welcome to the Teahouse. Although I'm also not an administrator, I do have a reasonable amount of experience assessing people's contributions and their purpose for being here. As you have made only 43 edits in the last 10 months, it is rather hard to give you feedback. You were clearly being helpful back in July when you reported a number of possible sock puppets.
But in August you didn't acquit yourself so well at this discussion about how Carl Benjamin ought to be described. Have you since come to appreciate that we don't care how a person chooses to describe themselves, but we do report how Reliable Sources describe that person? This is a key element of how we work, and attempting to whitewash or tarnish political groups or individuals is very common here, though it often results in a block for the editors concerned - so do take care. Equally, this edit of yours to Jewish Defense League was swiftly reverted by an experience editor and that would have made me wonder a bit about your editing motives. So take care not to change things just because you think it sounds nicer, more anodyne, or more accusative. We have to stay neutral here and write in an encyclopaedic voice which reports what other reliable sources have said, and definitively not what we think sounds nicer, or which fits our agenda.
This edit was good in that it removed uncited content (and I couldn't find anything to support it, even though I suspect it might have some validity), but it did leave a section headed 'Concerns' without anything to be concerned about! So it might have been better to have thought how best to deal with that as well. You might have been better off adding a {{citation needed}} template. It flags up a concern, whilst still leaving the text you're challenging present for others to at least see there's a query over its veracity.
You've used edit summaries about half the time - I'd suggest you do so all the time. Did you know you can set your Personal 'Preferences' so that you are prompted if you attempt to 'Publish changes' without adding an edit summary? It's really helpful. I hope this feedback is also helpful. Keep going; take care only to change content based upon reliable, published sources and you should be fine. One of your topic areas of interest does look to be covered by WP:1RR sanctions, so avoid any reverting or editing warring, or those sanctions could kick in very easily. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. :-) 5JVL9 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Should I rename Caffeine-Free Pepsi to Pepsi Caffeine Free?

This article's name, Caffeine-Free Pepsi, does not appear on any official shop website I look for. Target. Walmart. Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomegranatecookie (talkcontribs) 01:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pomegranatecookie. The titles of articles are determined per WP:COMMONNAME so that's what you should basing any proposal to change the article's name on at Talk:Caffeine-Free Pepsi. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Pomegranatecookie. It's a bad idea to rush to change any article name. MarchJuly is right to suggest you raise it on the talk page. But don't just look at online shopping sites, Google Books show the current title is formally listed as a brand name so I, for one, would initially resist any such name change without good evidence to change my mind. I'd also look at the photo which gives us a bit of a clue to its name![1][2][3]  Nick Moyes (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Tedlow, Richard S.; Jones, Geoffrey G. (2014). The Rise and Fall of Mass Marketing (RLE Marketing). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-66301-0. Retrieved 22 January 2020.
  2. ^ Commission, United States Federal Trade (1994). Federal Trade Commission Decisions. U.S. Government Printing Office. ISBN 978-0-16-049299-0. Retrieved 22 January 2020.
  3. ^ Beverage Industry Annual Manual. Magazines for Industry. 1988. Retrieved 22 January 2020.
Well, what about these? Target. Walmart. Amazon. They all display Pepsi Caffeine Free.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomegranatecookie (talkcontribs) 01:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, didn't you link to those already. As stated before, too, it's something to discuss on the article Talk page and not rush to make sudden changes. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Pomegranatecookie: I just checked before turning in, and all three links you gave are to products that are not currently available - so maybe old, alternative brand names? Nick Moyes (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Pomegranatecookie: Though the current can design appears to put Pepsi first, it could be just an artistic choice. The product name according to Pepsi appears to be "Caffeine Free Pepsi" (no hyphen) consistently (e.g., [2]). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the WP:COMMONNAME is Caffeine-Free Pepsi (and therefore, the title should remain as is), but it looks like Pepsi has updated their naming convention. Their website currently lists products with the word Pepsi first, followed by the rest of the drink name (with the exception of the word Diet which still precedes Pepsi) on their website [3]. A mention in the lede of the naming alternative may be appropriate. Orvilletalk 05:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Orville: In addition to the product fact sheet, I see it as "Caffeine Free Pepsi" in spreadsheets generated from here. There's also this, leading to this. The custom fountain drink chart is missing the product, but has "Caffeine Free Diet Pepsi" here.
The "Pepsi Caffeine Free" seems to be limited to the site. As far as which is newer, in fine print at the bottom of this product page, it says "Last updated on January 11, 2018", while the more product info link, which leads back to, says "Last updated on January 22, 2020".
I wonder if this is an (attempted?) internationalization issue, given that Romance languages use noun-adjective word order compared to English adjective-noun.
I'd say "Caffeine Free Pepsi" is the current name, and certainly the common name. I'm generally against mentioning all the minor variations in names (like word order) that add "clutter". I think readers can assume that such variations usually exist in practice without having to wade through it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is an editor intentionally destroying my article?

Hello all -- I apologize in advance for the length of this post; however, I am in need of assistance and want to share the facts.

The article in question is this one:

I've been a member of for a while and have only made small updates to existing pages and have never encountered a problem before. A few days ago, I decided to jump into the deep end and launch my first article from scratch. Like all of you, my time is my inventory and I don't like to see it squandered. Also, I would never intentionally destroy someone else's work; however, that is what is now being done to my first full article.

FULL DISCLOSURE -- I only crafted the article to understand the publishing process. I had been wanting to do this for quite some time but the right opportunity never presented itself. In November 2019, my friend of 12 years, Donny Boaz, was signed to a multi-year contract with the long-running CBS soap opera, The Young and the Restless. FINALLY, I believed I had an opportunity to craft a article from scratch. (NOTE: I can prove that Donny and I know one another because he and I worked on a film together back in 2008/2009 and we are both listed in the Cast/Crew on IMDb.

Regarding the article I contributed on Donny Boaz:

- The 'editor' in question removed 22 of the 31 entries I had listed for Donny's filmography; only 9 entries currently remain.

- The 'editor' in question has TWICE removed Donny's photo (that Donny gave me the rights to use for this article).

- The 'editor' in question has removed verified biographical information from the info field where Donny's photo was. (The 'editor' removed Donny's birth name, date of birth, etc.

- The 'editor' in question has revised the opening paragraph to the page.

- The 'editor' in question has removed critical information from the first paragraph under Biography to where that section now begins with an opening sentence that makes absolutely no sense in its current format.

- The 'editor' in question has now issued threats that if I don't comply, my account "may be blocked from editing".

- The 'editor' in question has TWICE placed a "maintenance template" page on my article -- but the maintenance would not be needed if this 'editor' would stop removing content so that the article goes from one that makes sense to one that looks like a drunk wrote it.

- The 'editor' in question has this to say on their own profile page: "Hello, and welcome to my user page! I am livelikemusic and I work intensely with US daytime soap operas. I contribute to the current daytime soaps: The Young and the Restless, The Bold and the Beautiful, General Hospital, and Days of Our Lives. I created the webpage for Taylor Walker, however, due to WP:V it is no longer active. However, I brought the article back in 2012 following extensive addition of sources. Several people believe I am not a good editor; I'm just fiercely blunt. Some see it as a push-off, but I see it as a plus-side. Got beef with me? Bring it to me, not someone else."

- Have I inadvertently angered this 'editor' - that, allegedly, works "intensely with US daytime soap operas" - because I launched an article on my friend that has been signed to be a key player on Young and the Restless?

I had no idea that editors would intentionally - and repeatedly - sabotage another contributor's work. If I had known that, I would have never launched the page for Donny Boaz. But, now, I know for a fact that I've done nothing wrong. I am documenting all of these cases of sabotage to the Donny Boaz article -- including screen captures to prove my work is accurate and that it is originally-written.

FUN FACT: I am a journalist in the motorcycle industry and former editor for a magazine so I understand the need for original content and having that content pass Copyscape. The 'editor' in question accused me of plagiarizing content the first time he/she came after me. He/she did not accuse me of this on this second go-around; however, I did address that accusation the last time I repaired my work.

It's truly disheartening to see this take place and my heart goes out to other contributors that may have been run off due to virtual bullying like this.

Any positive help and suggestions on how to address this issue are much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaineDevries13 (talkcontribs) 02:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

RaineDevries13, Howdy hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I know its disheartening to have your content undone, but there were reasons for all of it. Alas, the user who undid didn't explain it very well or discuss it with you. Hopefully I can try to shine some light on the situation.
For starters, anytime you have a conflict of interest (such as knowing the subject of an article) you should probably declare that before starting the article, by following the steps at WP:COI. Receiving compensation for edits in any way is a whole other can of worms, which must be declared by following the steps at WP:PAID.
  • The films were removed because there wasn't a reliable source to confirm that fact. In general, the article is too short on sources. Also, note that IMDb is not a source that can be used for filmography as it is not reliable.
  • Photo permissions are a tricky area. If you do have permission, you still need the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, or Boaz) to email by following the steps about using the WikiMedia email system, OTRS.
  • Biographical info that is unsourced, i.e. birthdate, is usually removed as we have no way of verifying it without a source. Our policy on living people is pretty strict, because living people can sue us if we get something really wrong :)
  • Please note that anyone is free to edit any page, and that you do not own pages you create
  • Being disruptive can lead you to being blocked, if an editor mentions blocking its usually good to either discuss with them why the brought it up, or seek guidance (as you've done here)
  • The maintainence templates seem valid. They can be removed once the issues surrounding them are fixed. That can mainly be remedied by having quality sources.
  • We do not allow copy and pasting, you are right. But we also don't allow original research, such as reporting. We only say what reliable sources say.
  • Other notes on your article: its written more like a magazine piece, and not like a neutral encyclopedia article. Make sure the tone is neutral, and reads formally.
Whew...I know thats a lot. Learning to edit can be quite daunting at first. You've unwittingly jumped into the sharktank on your first go, creating new articles is one of the hardest things to do on. Hopefully we can guide you through the processs, and make it less painful. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello all -- in reference to:

CaptainEek graciously sent me this info: "Biographical info that is unsourced, i.e. birthdate, is usually removed as we have no way of verifying it without a source. Our policy on living people is pretty strict, because living people can sue us if we get something really wrong :)"

Fair enough -- however, if an article from specifies Donny Boaz's birthdate as December 12, and I have cited that article the entire time as part of his Bio, then what more do I need to do to prove that he was born on December 12?

"December 12" is noted on the very last line:

RaineDevries13 (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello RaineDevries13, and thanks for coming to the Teahouse! I believe CaptainEek was using birthdate as an example of the type of information that we need to source, it isn't the only fact. Any fact inn the article that needs to be cited has to be reliably sourced, see WP:RS for more information on that. You don't need anything more to prove his birth date, that much is fine. Does a lot his answer your question? I am courtesy pinging @CaptainEek: so that they can reply also if they do wish. Thanks again for coming to the Teahouse! Puddleglum 2.0 04:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to sign, repinging @RaineDevries13: and CaptainEek, sorry. Puddleglum 2.0 04:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey RaineDevries13 & Puddleglum2.0 & CaptainEek, a little yes and a little no. There's still a bit of a vicious vortex in that only 3 of my source articles are left on the page as the other's have been removed by the 'editor' for some reason. And those source articles provided the necessary backup to my content. #1stepforward3stepsback — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaineDevries13 (talkcontribs) 04:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

RaineDevries13, I think it was probably removed because it wasn't stated inline, and thus there was no inline citation. But the situation is more complicated than that. The CBS source is not independent. Not only do our sources need to be reliable, they need to be independent of their subjects I imagine that the CBS bit was written by Boaz or his agent, and thus Boaz/CBS could say whatever they wanted. For very simple biographical info that is unlikely to be falsified or misleading, like birthdate, it would probably work as a source. And I would still prefer a better source. But for the rest of the info, I wouldn't trust it farther than I could throw it. What you really need is some independent sources, like magazine or newspaper coverage (online is fine). CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, RaineDevries13. I must agree with what CaptainEek wrote above. I also want to mention about dates oif birth specifically. As per WP:DOB (part of our policy about living people) we do not include full birth dates for living people unless these have already been widely published elsewhere, or published by or with the clear consent of the subject (such as on the subject's own personal web page). This is because such dates have little encyclopedic value, but can be used for identity theft or invasion or privacy. The year of birth is enough to give context in most cases. Do you really think the above cite is wide publication? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel @CaptainEek -- Thank you for your feedback. Ok....then what about this article that I have as a reference on the page that backs up more than 90% of the facts that I originally wrote in his Biography? It's not written by Boaz or an agent or a network. It's written by a journalist in a newspaper: RaineDevries13 (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Users outside of the US can read the suggested source on WayBack.[4] For a @ping (aka @mention) you can use {{ping|DESiegel|CaptainEek}} at the same time as ~~~~, now done + rendered as @DESiegel and CaptainEek: (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@RaineDevries13: When signing posts on talk pages, please use a space and four tildes after the very last line of your post. Nothing else should follow it. Like this:

blah blah blah last line of post. ~~~~

Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

References for Submissions

sir how to give a reference as I got this msg from wiki "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernatural eerie (talkcontribs) 05:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Supernaturaleerie. I've created a new section for your question so it doesn't get mixed in with the discussion above this one. Orvilletalk 05:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The words in blue in the feedback messages (on the draft and on your user talk page) are wikilinks to useful help. Among those, one particular page which you should read is Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: This is about Draft:Detectives Of Supernatural. David notMD (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Table formatting

When I try to make a collapsed table something strange occurs:

Caption that is long
Header cell Header cell
Content cell Content cell
Caption that is long
Header cell Header cell
Content cell Content cell
{{nobr}} worked for me, I recall table layout on enwiki ~2005 (as XHTML 1 transitional). (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

How can we make the table format well so that the caption remains on one line while the table is collapsed? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 05:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The Lord of Math, Please sure to read MOS:COLLAPSE, as collapsible tables are generally discouraged although there are some exceptions. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You can force the width with:

Caption that is long
Header cell Header cell
Content cell Content cell

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

^.^b, not checking the MOS, I'm not planning to use it without a go from mobile + screenreader users. – (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Beach road, Takoradi perhaps not meeting wp standards and only one source is listed

i may be wrong, however Beach road, Takoradi looks like an ad. it has only one source and the source seems to be real estate corporation. if i find similar, where and how should i report ? Leela52452 (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Leela52452. If you believe that this topic is not notable, then you can nominate the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I share your concerns. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I nominated this page for deletion just now. Thanks for raising this concern. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 07:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not able to successfully publish biography of a living person.

I am trying to create a Bibleography of Mr. Stalin Dayanand. He is an Indian Environmentalist based in Mumbai. His opinions are reflected in plethora of articles in newspapers and online news websites. Besides, he also writes column in Free Press Journal. He has also been invited to give talk at a TedX event in March, 2018. The reference links have been given for his presence in all the above. However, the page is still again and again nominated for speedy deletion. Please help me with the notability criteria that are lacking in it.

Below is the link for the page- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

There was a deletion discussion the first time the page was created (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stalin_Dayanand). Recreating the page without any improvement is not going to lead to a different result. Stalin Dayanand is not a notable person. You need to explain why they are using good quality reliable sources. - X201 (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Telling people, here, about a "plethora of articles" will convince no-one. To get an article accepted, you will need to establish that its subject is notable by citing several reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. At present, Stalin Dayanand cites no sources at all. Maybe you need to read Help:Referencing for beginners.   Maproom (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems possible that Mr. Dayanand's news coverage is mostly about Save Aarey. It might be best to add Dayanand's activism to the Save Aarey section of the article Vanashakti. Firstly, however,, you must learn how to make proper citations of your sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Help !!! Why my page is yet not published ?

Can some help and guide me what has to be done more to get my college page published?

The page am talking about is Insight College festival.

I have already tried to get the sources attached.

Who will review it and when , it taking a lot of time , if there is any issue about the content or about the source it should be conveyed, so we can rectify it at the earlier.

Am trying to publish this page from last 10 days . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laveshpurswani (talkcontribs) 10:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Laveshpurswani, You have not even submitted it for review, and as such no-one will review it. does not have pages, it has articles, and the difference is pretty key: A page can contain whatever you want, a article is carefully vetted and is subject to a large number of policies, like notability, which your draft appears to fail.
Courtesy link: User:Laveshpurswani/sandbox. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 10:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Laveshpurswani (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your page is 'published' in that it is in your personal sandbox. It is not 'published' in that it is not formally a part of the encyclopedia yet; this is because you have not submitted it for a review. You should not submit it yet. If you were to submit it, it would probably be rejected, as you have not offered independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this event showing how it meets the definition of a notable event. These sources would be things like news coverage or other independent sources that have chosen on their own to write about the event. Your sources seem to be basic listings or announcements, which do not establish notability. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial before further editing; successfully writing a new article is the hardest task on.
If you are associated with this event, you should review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Update to content on Optical Express page


I have been trying to propose an edit to the opening paragraph on Optical Express's page as the information that is currently there is not factually correct. The change has been rejected by an editor however, independent sources to back up the information have been supplied. I have resubmitted a change request however, have not had a response to this in over 9 days. I was looking to see how I can go about getting the change accepted and made.

The current opening paragraph states: Optical Express is a retail optical services brand and laser eye surgery specialist in the United Kingdom.[ The company also provides refractive treatments such as lens surgery and cataract surgery.[

However, Optical Express is predominantly a refractive surgery brand and UK's leading provider in laser and intraocular lens surgery. Please refer to the [1] which states 'The biggest chain is Optical Express: it is said to do 6 out of 10 laser eye procedures in the UK, and has over 100 clinics.'

More information to back up the point that Optical Express is the UK's leading provider of laser and intraocular lens surgery can be found in the following Mintel Reports: [2] [3]

Optical Express also has almost 130 clinics in the UK. The list of these can be found here:[4]

Can the opening statement be amended to the following, as it is purely stating facts?:

Founded in 1991, Optical Express has grown from one location to almost 130 clinics and has become the UK's leading provider of laser and Intraocular Lens surgery. As well as providing eye surgery the company also supplies glasses and contact lenses.

Can you let me know how I can go about getting this reviewed?

Thanks Trees88 (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Trees88, Your amendment, to me, does not appear to have the required encyclopedic tone that is necessary for. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 10:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Trees88 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your language above leads me to think that you work for Optical Express or otherwise are associated with them. If so, this is a conflict of interest(please review). If you work for them, you must comply with the paid editing policy; this is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


"In Popular Culture" Section I added to multiple articles keeps getting deleted by the same user.

I have seen this section in many articles, usually the final one before the references. A particular band makes music based on historical events and personages. I made my first ever edits yesterday by making a note of that on the respective articles of 3 of the subjects of their songs. I kept it simple, 1-2 sentences and used the preview function to make sure it lined up with the articles formatting. I even linked to the articles for the band, their country of origin, and the album names on which the songs in question appear. Today, I log back in and one user in particular took it upon themselves to delete all 3 of my additions.

I know that an "In popular culture" section is a perfectly valid addition to an article, and what I wrote is concise, factual, and accurate. I don't understand why someone would insist on trying to delete correct and accurate information from a article. What do I do, I assume this will just end up in a back and forth revert war and I don't want that. Xap (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Xap Tallon Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The content you want to add does not have a citation or reference provided. This is why it is being removed. If you have a citation(such as an article about the band discussing its historical references in its songs), please provide it- or otherwise, please discuss the issue on the article talk page with the other editors involved. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Xap Tallon. I think the key issue, as another editor has highlighted on your talk page, is that not only might this edit of yours possibly be regarded as 'trivia', but more importantly that you did not cite any reference to substantiate the specific claim. That responsibility is yours and probably only then can other editors judge whether or not it is really trivial, or highly germane to the topic of the article. Does that make sense? If you aren't sure how to add references, or if a source is any good, the best thing to do is to offer the information on the article talk page and see what other interested editors feel about that addition going ahead, or not. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Another aspect is that stuff like "martial prowess, ferocity, and fearlessness" comes across as WP:PUFFERY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
What you want, for WP-purposes, is something like [5] (not that good, doesn't mention the name of the song, but best I found with a short googling). Slightly disagreeing with 331dot, what you want is an (or more) independent WP:RS that noticed that the group has a song about the division and bothered to write something about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
That triggered my DEnglish alert, in "prevent them falling into Allied hands" I miss a "from", and the "Allegations of war crimes" could be merged into the chronologically arranged history. Putting it mildly, enwiki is no WW2-fanzine. – (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

All of your attempts are to add mention of Sabaton (band) - a Swedish heavy metal band. Even with references, I would consider that trivia not worthy of describing as In popular culture. David notMD (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Such sections are controversial. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Request of Help

I was looking for some small help. I created an article User:Bookku/Me Too movement (Pakistan) in user namespace. Article is almost ready but before taking to main namespace Looking for help in English language Spell-check, punctuation, grammar check and corrections. Using better alternative words etc. Thanks in advance.

Bookku (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Bookku, I've moved it to Draft:Me Too movement (Pakistan), where other editors may be more willing to give it some attention. I'll do a little copy-editing myself. Maproom (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

How to create wiki page about the person?


I am part of the PR team of a well-known businessman. My team and I are interested in opening a wiki page about him. How can we do that and how long will it last for the page to be approved?

Thanks guys!

Best, PR manager — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prteam23 (talkcontribs) 14:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Prteam23. Best advice: "don't try". is not for promotion. If you do go forward, you will need to declare yourself a paid editor under WP:PAID. You would need to establish by independent sources tha thte subject is notable. And you will need to change your user name (which I am about to block) because a account should be for only one person, and your name at least implies shared use, which your question above seems to confirm. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Prteam23, and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks on. Creating one when you have a conflict of interest is even harder. Your concerns, as the PR team of your businessmen are, broadly speaking, in direct contention with's concerns as an encyclopaedia. Your concerns, very properly, are to get your client's name out there, and to present him in a favourable light:'s concerns are, if he is notable (in's special sense of the word) to have an article about him that is a neutrally-written summary of what independent people have published about him, favourable or unfavourable; and if he does not meet the criteria for notability, not to have an article about him at all.
If you want to proceed with this, you must first make the mandatory declaration of your status as a paid editor; then you should create a draft and get it reviewed: see your first article. Remember that is basically not interested in anything that you client has said, written, published or done, except as commented on by people who have no connection with him. The article should be based almost entirely on such independent published sources (and note that an article based on a press release or interview is not regarded as independent). Material from non-independent sources such as your client's website should be limited to uncontroversial factual data like places and dates.
If your draft is accepted, it will become an article (not a 'page') in, and thereafter neither you nor your client will have any control over its contents: your involvement should be limited to suggesting edits, that an uninvolved editor will decide how to implement.
In short: promotion of any kind is forbidden in, and if you are a PR team, you are likely to find it hard to avoid. --ColinFine (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
In answer to the second question, once you change User name, declare PAID, create a neutral point of view, referenced draft and submit it to Articles for creation (AfC), it can take as long as four months before it is reviewed and either accepted or declined. David notMD (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Could someone please help me with an article?

It was denied for publication. I tried to update it according to guidelines. Should I do anything else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlspriest (talkcontribs) 14:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mlspriest: I'm guessing you're a professional PR or marketing person. This draft is written like a press release. The first thing I'd do is remove any unnecessary adjectives or adverbs from that draft. It's difficult for new editors to use them without it sounding promotional. Second, buzzwords and phrases like "provides solutions" and "enables customers" are meaningless PR-speak. When I'm talking to my friends, I don't say something like, "This car provides solutions to my consumer-centric needs and enables me to transport myself." And, so, an encyclopedia article should not be written like that, either. This is endemic in press releases that have been lightly edited to become articles. Try looking through this guide for creating new articles for general advice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

using lists for deorphan

i am coming across few orphan articles, the only link available are lists. i have gone ahead, however i am having second thoughts. few examples : Beyeler , List of Santos FC players, List of Wellington representative cricketers Leela52452 (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you read what it says at WP:Orphan? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@David Biddulph: i got confused after reading it, in dilemma whether to use Disambiguation pages, english is not my mother tongue. Leela52452 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Leela52452. Correctly adding an article to a list article is a legitimate way to de-orphan the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

A couple of times the logo has been removed for

I've tried {{Non-free use rationale logo}} but I'm not entirely sure the right way of doing it. I understand that fair use is not allowed on commmons, but how do I add a logo as non-free?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PewterCityGym (talkcontribs) 2020-01-22T16:42:45 (UTC)

Upload the image to enwiki ("Upload file" in the "Tools" menu), not to Commons, and use {{Non-free use rationale logo}} as the justification there. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, PewterCityGym, and welcome to the Teahouse. As you've found, you cannot upoad non-free material to Commons, but only to; and in doing so, you must show that it is to be used in a way that conforms with all the terms in the non-free content criteria: the template you included (which I have changed to a link rather than the template appearing on this page) is to gather that essential information. You'll need to explain what the problem is that you're having with it.
However: rather than spending time on icing the cake, I suggest you address the much more important issue of providing some independent sources for the Awards. At present, the article does nothing to establish that the Awards are notable, and (now that you have brought it to our notice) it is likely to get deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

format question

Please show me how to format the following:

<ref name=“Slo05”>{{cite book title=The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning; editors=Keith J. Holyoak, Robert G. Morrison; article title=The Problem of Induction; authors=Steven A. Sloman, David A. Lagnado.

Thank you.TBR-qed (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, TBR-qed and welcome to the Teahosue. As displayed, this is incomplete. it should be something more like:
<ref name="Slo05">{{cite book title=The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning date=2005 publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] editor-first1=Keith J. editor-last1=Holyoak editor-first2=Robert G. editor-last2=Morrison chapter=The Problem of Induction first1=Steven A. last1=Sloman first2=David A. last2=Lagnado isbn=0521531012}}</ref>
Which will render as:[1]


  1. ^ Sloman, Steven A.; Lagnado, David A. (2005). "The Problem of Induction". In Holyoak, Keith J.; Morrison, Robert G. (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521531012.
Note closing }} and closing ref tag. Note use of (not ;) to introduce parameter values. Note parameters date, chapter, publisher, and isbn. Note straight not angled quotes in ref tag. Note separate parameters for each editor and each author. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

How to do this?

What is the procedure to revert an edit? Please tell the easiest method. Alpha rows (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alpha rows. Nobody likes being reverted, so it's really important to explain why in an 'edit summary' when you do make a reversion. Whether it is reverting your own edit or someone else's, (and assuming you are not working in Mobile view) simply go to the 'View History' tab for that page. You'll see a separate row for every separate published edit, showing the name of the editor the date and time, with an 'undo' link at the end. Click that, then put in a short explanatory summary why you've reverted, and click 'Publish changes'. Let us know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Alpha rows, it's called "undo", see Help:Reverting. However, it doesn't always work, in which case see the rest of the page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: After another hour 'helping' them on my talk page it turns out this 'new user' is a sockpuppet, and has now been blocked. Sometimes WP:AGF can be stretched too far. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"Alpha rows" is merely a sock, and has already been blocked by Bbb23. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Counterexample, I considered to link this teahouse history high-light on xyz.Face-smile.svg84.46.53.93 (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Congrats from up to 510 IPv4s: (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, I start from "AGF"; thereafter, assumption is much less important than observation or counterobservation. ¶ Anyone asked out of the blue to help with a bio article (and particularly with the article on Shamsheer Vayalil) should first skimread Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil and see whether the person asking has a similar way of asking to that used by the numerous IPs and sockpuppets of Royankitkumar. He (or possibly she) can be quite ingratiating; but in attempting to help, you'd be wasting your time. -- Hoary (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 I-League

2019–20 I-League#Scoring there is a problem in this section. i dont know how to describe it. check it by visual editing, and then click on this section. every section after this is getting selected.  :) S A H 18:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi :)SAHA. It's going to be kinda hard for someone here at the Teahouse to help you if you're not really able to describe the problem you're having. Are you only having problems when you try to edit the page using the "Visual editor" (VE) or are you having the same problems when you use the "Source editor" (SE)? I don't use the VE so I don't really know anything about how it works, but I'm able to open the editing window for the "Scoring" section using the SE without any problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: it is working well with SE. but, when you are using VE, and clicking the scoring section, all the sections below it are getting selected (they are getting blue coloured, just like anything gets blue when u select it). if u press delete, everything is getting deleted.  :) S A H 08:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Have you tried to use the VE on another article or using another device? For example, try checking VE on similarly formatted 2018–19 I-League and then checking it on some differently formatted random article. If you have the same problem on the 2018-19 article but not on the random article, then there might be something perculiar to the way the those two I-League articles are formatted that's causing the problem. One other possibility is that the 2019-20 article is protected, and perhaps that's not working well with the VE. Finally, one other thing might be to try to check is the same problem happens when you use a different device. If you still can sort things out after all that, this might be a good thing to bring up at WP:VPT since there may be some techinical issue that's causing the problem. Sometimes in the past when I've a tech problem, it turned out to be already something others were aware of (i.e. a "known" bug) that just hasn't been fixed yet or can't be fixed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

How do I do this?

Hi this is probably a dumb request but could someone tell me how to create a football kit pattern using the UploadWizard? I have not done this before and need a bit of help.REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi REDMAN 2019, it's only dumb in the sense that I replied to almost the same question here. You current question seems related, so was the guidance I linked to not sufficient? Presumably you have now created the pattern, but are confused how to upload the image to Commons? Or are you still having problems 'creating' the pattern in the first place?. The clearer you can be, the more easily we can assist you, or at least redirect you somewhere so you can assist yourself. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, In answer I am having problems 'creating'. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
To be precise I don't know what codes to use. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@REDMAN 2019: Precision really helps! Look, I'm not totally sure I can help you much, and certainly not without understanding precisely how far you've got, and where you are stuck. May I suggest you lay out your attempts on your own sandbox page where you can demonstrate how far you've got, try multiple versions and maybe allow me to play around there too for you?. I'm guessing it's that you can't recreate the seven stripes of red, white and black top used by Derby County in the 1890s? If so, it would really, really have helped if you had clearly explained precisely that, as none of us are mind readers, or can guess where you have got stuck. I can see from your userpage that you have experience in creating a wide range of patterns, so I know I'm probably talking to somebody who actually knows more about it that I do! Personally, if I it is the 7-striped shirt, I'd think about downloading an equivalent black and white version and trying to edit it and reupload a new coloured version myself. Is that a possible route for you? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Will try. thanks! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Creating a new article

Hi The question that I wanted to ask is how you make an article Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeinfornmation (talkcontribs) 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Please, see Wikipedia:Your first article. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Ilikeinfornmation, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Creating new articles from a blank start is one of the harder tasks on, perhaps the hardest an inexperienced user is likely to face. In future I urge you to use the Article Wizard to create a draft under the Articles for Creation project. There, an experienced editor will review your draft once you think it is ready. Only when a reviewer approves will the draft be moved to the main article space. This avoids the situation where a deletion is requested soon after the initial version of an article is posted.

Also, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article, if you have not already done so. The advice there can be very helpful, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
Congratulations, you have now created a valid article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Image replacement

I was recently asked by a client to update the image on their page. I created an account and was able to delete the image that was there but I was not allowed to upload the image that the client gave me because it said that it didn't think that the image was mine. How can I get around this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetremovals (talkcontribs) 19:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Internetremovals, Howdy hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! For starters, we require that paid editors formally disclose that by following the steps at WP:PAID. Failing to do so is a violation of the terms of service. Secondly, we only allow images that are freely usable. That means its either in the public domain, or the creator has licensed it under the right free license. What you need to do is email WikiMedia by following the steps here. Note that you are an employee of the person. If your employer does not have the copyright to the photo, then you will need to have the photographer contact WikiMedia. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse Internetremovals. Oh dear, there are a lot of issues here, not least of which is that I tend to feel someone who is paid to edit should not rely on free volunteer time to assist them in their business - you really ought to be able to find and navigate our help pages yourself.
The other issue is that there is an Australian company by the same name as this account. You may or may not be the same thing, but you may not edit with a promotional username, or one that suggests shared use. Therefore that account will shortly be soft-blocked, and you must choose another name to edit under. But before you attempt to make one more edit, you must read WP:PAID and follow the obligatory instructions to declare on our new userpage that you are being paid, and by whom. Then and only then should you read Wikipedia:Uploading images, making sure that you are the person who took the photograph, or it will not be acceptable for you to claim it as your own, and therefore to release it for commercial re-use. I hope this makes some sense, and I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news for you. I will make a point of monitoring the article you have begun to edit to ensure that you are not attempting to whitewash any content about this person. We have a policy of neutral tone in our articles, and good stuff and bad stuff can go in, providing it is referenced to reliably published sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Derive Pcorr from correlation of residuals and inverse of covariance matrix


here the article says you can compute pcorr in these two ways, but there is no prove or reference that the correlation of residual and the inverse of covariance are equivalent. Could someone help me to prove this equivalence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Try asking at the math reference desk: WP:RDM RudolfRed (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Partial_correlation is an ideal place to discuss that issue, (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Dab Solver issue

I got a notification last week that I had to fix a page I edited. I've attempted this a couple time in the past few days and any time I try to fix with dab solver, I get an error message. Thankfully, someone was able to fix the issue for me, but is there still an issue using the dab solver? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan1976 (talkcontribs) 21:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You yourself fixed it with Dabsolver, in this edit, Sportsfan1976. Dabsolver is kind of sneaky that way, and it writes the edit summary as well.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

A new article vs adding content to a related article

I need advice about whether I should create a new article or add my desired content to a related, already existing article... just can't decide which is most appropriate. The existing article is, and the content I wish to add includes some detailed information and a photo of a newly constructed Olduvai Gorge monument at the entrance to the road leading to the gorge. Any guidance is appreciated. --Kufundisha (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Kufundisha, and welcome to the Teahouse. When in doubt, add content and references into an existing article. Whilst a monument might be notabe in its own right, it would require a number of in depth articles to be produced about it, and not just short news stories. Remember that content can always be moved out from one article into a new page if it has expanded too much in the first one. It's really appreciated that you've come to ask this question, so good luck with adding it to Olduvai Gorge. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick Moyes! Is it appropriate to thank you here? --Kufundisha (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kufundisha: Of course it is, and you are indeed most welcome. Thanking people is something we don't do enough of here on, and it is just as encouraging to us old hands as it is to a new editor to know that their contribution is appreciated by someone. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kufundisha: I would make a new section called Monument to be section six (pushing Gallery down one) and add this article as a source. [[6]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 04:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Timtempleton:Thanks for those suggestions . I had decided to create a new section to include the monument as well as the gorge museum (which was not previously mentioned in the article, surprisingly). There is already an existing article for the museum, which I thought should be linked from the gorge article. I added the new section just above the gallery, as you suggested. The source you mention is the very source I had selected to use, and was the best I could find at this point. I think my edit went pretty well, though I admit to being a bit frustrated by my attempts to situate images. I do not yet understand entirely what factors affect how/where images will land on the page and they seem to flit around unpredictably for me, making me feel like a bull in a china shop.--Kufundisha (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Created a new article

I followed the guidelines and instructions given on about creating a new article (Aishe Ghosh). Just want someone to check or approve it, if I missed something or did anything wrong. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tayi Arajakate. Since the article wasn't created via Wikipedia:Articles for creation, there is really no "formal review" process that the article is going to be subjected to; rather, improvements will tend to be made by others who happen to come across the article and notice some things which might need fixing. There are editors who belong to Wikipedia:New pages patrol who do go around checking new articles, but the nature of the review may depend upon who is doing the reviewing. Some reviewers may not be able to or want to spend lots of time on a single article; so, they just do a basic assessment for notability and assign a general assessment; others may choose to spend more time on an article and try and cleanup any formatting or other errors they may notice. If you'd like a more formal review, you can ask at WP:PR or at a WikiProject under whose scope the article may fall under. If you look at the page history of the article, you see that some other editors have tried to clean some things up; so, perhaps maybe they will further continue to do so or some new editors will show up to continue where they left off. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

How to move a page

Please help me that how can i change the title of a page. Looking forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepSingh5 (talkcontribs) 02:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

By "moving" it. (See the link titled "Move".) You are very new here. I strongly advise you not to move any page (aside from one that you have just created), until you have made a couple of hundred edits. -- Hoary (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi DeepSingh5. Moving a page can sometimes not only be a little tricky, it can also be something that not everyone may agree with; so, instead of trying to move the page yourself, you probably should first propose that it be moved on the article's talk page to see whether there's a consensus to do so. If it turns out that others also think the page should be moved, then most likely someone more experienced that yourself will be more than happy to do so. Some articles, however, don't have lots of editors watching/monitoring them which means you may not get a quick response from posting on the article's talk; so, you can also make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves if you like since someone may respond faster there. Regardless of which approach you decide to take, you're going to have to be able to justify why you feel the page needs to be moved and how doing so would be in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines; for more information on this, please look at WP:COMMONNAME and WP:BEFOREMOVING. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Corean war

Why in the corean war tha Canadian flag is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:7981:1100:1AD:E313:CF7A:B130 (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Not wrong. That was the flag of Canada at the time. The maple leaf flag wasn't adopted until 1965. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
See more at Flag of Canada. Korean War (1950–1953) displays File:Flag of Canada (1921–1957).svg. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"See also"

How do I get the "see also" link to include a section?

E.g. I want to use

but I want to link to Art of ancient egypt § Stelae instead of the whole article on the art of ancient Egypt.

Purplemoonsong (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Like this: *See also [[Art of Ancient Egypt#StelaeArt of Ancient Egypt § Stelae]] -- Hoary (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Purplemoonsong. There are some examples of how to tweak a Template:See also given in Template:See also#Examples. If you want to add the "See also" reference as a hat note and the being a section in the body of the article you can do so by adding the syntax {{See alsoarticle name#section name}} below the section heading of the relevant section. If, however, you just want to add an entry to the WP:SEEALSO section of an article, the method suggest above by Hoary should work fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Help in writing

HI would like to right on the topic of "Sarin Foundation". It is the Sarin Memorial Legal Aid Foundation and is dedicated to the cause of protecting public interest, spreading legal literacy, taking up causes of general public importance for legal redressal and turning lawyers into socially responsible professionals.

Please suggest is the topic relevant and notable.

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kufundisha (talkcontribs) 06:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shilpuaery (talkcontribs) 05:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi KufundishaShilpuaery. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability and Wikipedia:is not here to tell the world about your noble cause since your likely to find some helpful guidance on those pages.
After reading those pages, if you still feel that this is subject that can have a article written about it (i.e. it's notable), and you want to try and do so yourself, then please take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners for some general ideas on how to do so. Be advised that the writing a article can be a pretty challenging thing to do, particularly for new editors not very familiar with how works; so, you might want to start by creating a draft instead and slowly work on it as you learn more about. Then, when you think the draft is ready, you can submit it for review to Wikipedia:Articles for creation so that more experienced editors can look it over and make suggestions on how to improve it.
You don't have to do all of this of course, but doing so might save you some disappointment and also give you time to learn more about. Lots well-meaning but inexperienced editors try to add articles to all the time, but many of their efforts are not suitable for and end up being deleted fairly quickly. Although is always encouraging editors to create new articles, it also has established certain standards that it expects all articles to meet and sometimes it can take awhile to get a feel for what these are which is why many first efforts often end up being deleted.
Anyway, there are currently almost six million articles. While each of these articles certainly has one creator, most of them have been improved many times over the years by many different editors. One of the best ways to learn about how to create a new article is to try and improve already existing articles because it allows you to learn about relevant policies and guidelines see firsthand how they are being applied by other editors. So, maybe starting off by trying to help improve existing articles with actually help you someday create a new article from scratch. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to correct name of person whose question was resplied to. -- 07:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)]
@Marchjuly: Hello. I did not write the above question. I do not understand how my signature is connected with it. I did see this request earlier as I was reading a response from my communication in one of the previous questions, but it did not have my name associated with it at that time. My signature is attached to this by some error that I do not understand. --Kufundisha (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Marchjuly misattributed it to you. I'm sure that this was just an innocent mistake. -- Hoary (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
My mistake Kufundisha. Sorry about that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


Please create more articles for 6 mil articles! There are just -771 articles left! Add oil! 13:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Lord of Math (talkcontribs) 08:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Lord of Math:  Done. We made it to 6 million articles. Interstellarity (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

What to do with inconsistent reviewer comments

I originally submitted an article, Draft:Aid Worker Security Database in the spring of 2019. It was denied on June 19 due to copyright content from the website I redid the article assuring nothing was copied from the website and resubmitted. The next draft was denied by WorldBruce on October 23 requesting more third party sources, see the comments here: Comment: The subject-specific guideline that applies is WP:NWEB. The draft's lead says that according to The New York Times, the database "is widely regarded as an authoritative reference for aid organisations and governments in assessing trends in security threats." Reliable sources frequently cite the database in its subject area, so I think the NYT is right. But my reading of WP:WEBCRIT is that web notability is not demonstrated by the database being cited frequently (unlike the guidelines for academics and for newspapers, magazines, and academic journals). Instead, the database itself needs to be the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial works.

If there were one or two more references of the quality of the NY Times piece, I'd say this is clearly something we should accept into mainspace. As it is, however, I have my doubts that it would survive WP:AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I added a significant amount of sources and resubmitted. On January 17 it was denied again by Robert McClenon for a completely different reason not previously mentioned; it is two similar to the article 'Attacks on humanitarian workers'. This is inaccurate because the Draft:Aid Worker Security Database article simply explains the role and parameters of the database not the actual act of attacking a humanitarian worker. By this logic any IHL (International Humanitarian Law) pages or the page 'civilian casualties' would be a split of the ACLED Database wiki page. The Aid Worker Security Database has been a pillar of data on humanitarian workers used by the UN for a decade and should have its own page as RoySmith stated above. I would appreciate any assistance in rectifying this misunderstanding with reviewer Robert McClenon. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumOutcomes (talkcontribs) 16:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith. I have noticed the seeming inconsistency you describe. It appears to result from the fact that a reviewer need only cite one glaring shortcoming of an article in order to deny it. Each reviewer has a different perspective on the shortcoming they find most prominent. Once you have corrected that deficiency, the next editor finds another shortcoming still remaining to be addressed, and so on. Due to time constraints on reviewers, you only receive feedback on one "fatal problem" at a time. I'm pretty sure this makes look unfriendly to new article submitters, and perhaps the language of the rejection template can be altered so as not to suggest that an article has one deficiency only, to avoid a nasty surprise to earnest article creators.
Rather than trying to score a "home run" with a stand-alone article, it might be more practical for you to add a section on the database to the article Attacks on humanitarian workers. --Quisqualis (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Do I close or delete a discussion on the Talk page?

A couple of years ago I put a comment on the Talk:Ship page. The issue was resolved long ago to my satisfaction and I imagine everyone else's satisfaction as well. Since the discussion on the talk page is now irrelevant to the Ship page, do I have some responsibility to delete or close the discussion? I read :Closing discussions and it is not clear to me if that should be done. Yanacochito (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessary to do anything, Yanacochito. You should never delete another editor's comments on a discussion, nor should you delete your own comments if they have been replied to. See WP:TPG. As far as archiving, for most article talk pages, it isn't needed. As a matter of fact, most article talk pages consist of the Wikiprojects banner and nothing else. The general practice is when a talk page's length gets unwieldy, someone will set up archiving. John from Idegon (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
2017 is still fresh for a talk page, and I dislike archiving unchecked WayBack bot info. For a working 2005 example see Talk:List of Penthouse Pets, for a working AFC-draft 2019 example see Talk:Kim Iversen, and for a FAIL ("manual archiving" as IP) see Talk:Jimmy Dore. – (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Not new, but been away...

Hi guys,

I'm not new around, however... I have been away for years, and I'm starting to get used to the coding and the rules and such. I'd like to know where would a good place to start. Also, I would like to know where or how I can change my username. Thanks a lots in advance. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 18:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Welcome back Miss Bono This will be what you are looking for... Wikipedia:Changing username All the best. Theroadislong (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

When to disclose being paid

I get paid to research and write from that research. In some cases I have been asked to edit or write articles on using that research. Until recently, I've declined doing any edits on because frankly, I wasn't ready to delve into the details of becoming an editor and honestly, they didn't need to be done. The original information on the articles was close enough and the cited source was sufficient.

Recently I was asked to write a short biography about Anne Klein the person and the company/brand. In my research I, of course, came to and found a low content article about Anne Klein that wasn't useful for my research.

Upon receipt of the biography paper I was asked if I could put the information on.

I believe my research can be an excellent addition to. At this point, it appears that I can either edit the existing article to such a point as to make it new or create a new article.

For comparison, here is the existing article:

Here is my article in my sandbox:

I hope you can access it (yes, I am that new).

So here I sit. Happy to edit an existing article if that is what is deemed necessary, happy to publish mine as a new page and I believe reference the low-content page. Realizing that I was paid to do the original research though not paid to write a article so wondering if I need to reference anything in my userpage about that and to what detail.

I want to be a part of the world of creating quality information for people to trust and use.

Your guidance is greatly appreciated. --FastInfoPro (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)FastInfoPro

There's a page that details how to disclose paid contributions by editors on. You can find it here. Chlod (say hi) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Should an article be deleted if

Hi I am wondering if an article should be deleted if the references used, do not cite a source themselves, because there are no primary references to cite? In other words the references used are simply repeating a fictional account of the subject. Also, in the article are genealogical results that do not meet standard genealogical standards (skipping generations) which is unethical, and contains a lineage that has been proven incorrect by modern scholars. Macrorybeg (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean by "do not cite a source themselves, because there are no primary references to cite". Ruslik_Zero 20:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Macrorybeg:. It sounds like you're questioning whether this particular source is reliable, which is a great thing to be questioning. One of the main parts of our definition of "reliable source" is that it has a reputation for fact-checking, and you've given some valid reasons why this source might not have that kind of reputation. If content in a article references a source that isn't reliable, you can follow the steps here to remove the footnote and challenge the content. If at the end of this process the article has less than two reliable sources, and if you're reasonably certain that no other reliable sources exist on the topic, you can nominate the article for deletion. Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

What types of sources am I missing?

I've tried to get an article published about the company that I work for called Mapline. It is a data analytics software for businesses, and it hasn't been featured in many places that would seem to qualify as sources for. So I'm not sure if I just need one or two sources for the "features" aspects of the company, or if I'm needing like ten more sources.

I don't get why it is so difficult to create a page for a legitimate business. I understand that there need to be guidelines, but I'm just hoping for some clarification as to how far away I am. Because as things stand now, it seems like Mapline needs to be featured in a number of blogs or news articles in order to have a page. Cjarrell11 (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Featuring in blogs won't help at all, they're not reliable sources. If you can find reliable (i.e. not blogs and the like) independent (not based on press releases or on statements by or interviews with employees) two is unlikely to be enough, but ten is more than enough. There's no hard rule, but four should be enough, as long as they're all reliable, independent and have significant discussion of the subject. Maproom (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
So would pages within the company website that show things like software features and plan descriptions count as some of those sources? I've seen on a few other company pages references to their own site, and I'm wondering if that works. Or are they just using that as a way to add references that aren't needed to be published.Cjarrell11 (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I've now looked at Draft:Mapline, and see that it cites three sources. The first is clearly not independent, the second has no discussion of Mapline, and the third is based on a press release. If you want to get the draft accepted as an article, please do not add any more references like those (and preferably, remove those three). When a reviewer is deciding whether to accept an article, they judge on quality not quantity; including worthless sources like those just wastes everyone's time. What counts is what people independent of the company have said about it, not what it's said about itself.
You are allowed to cite the company's own web site, but such a citation helps not at all with what appears to be your problem: citing sources that establish that the company is notable.   Maproom (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Maproom (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello, Cjarrell11, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not the number of sources that matters (beyond 2 or 3): it is their quality. Basically, is not interested - at all - in anything said by the subject of the article about themselves, whether in their own publications, or in interviews and press releases. It is also not interested in anything said about them by random people on the internet, or in passing mentions in publications. All it is interested in is places where people who have no connection with the subject, and unprompted by the subject, have chosen to write at some length about the subject, and been published in a place with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. That is the kind of source you need. Many companies (and other subjects) exist for which sources of that quality cannot be found: it is impossible to write an acceptable article on those companies, and so tries to avoid people wasting their time and that of others in trying to get such an article written, by applying the test of whether the subject is notable in's special sense of the word. If you cannot find even a couple of sources like that, then Mapline is, by definition, not notable, and No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.
The reason it is so difficult to "create a page for a legitimate business" is that we are an encyclopaedia, not a business directory. "Create a page for" is not what we do: rather "Create an article about". You are probably going to have to go elsewhere to promote your company. --ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
To add a slight distinction, while a company's own webpages can't be used to argue WP:NOTABILITY, you can use them a little for stuff like who is founder/CEO, where is HQ etc. Not for stuff like the excellence of their services. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Page protection & edit filter statistics

Could someone please tell me how to find out the following: 1) How many (or what percentage) of articles in the English are under some kind of protection at the current time, e.g. how many are semi-protected, how many are under extended confirmed protection, etc.? 2) How often the spam blacklists are triggered 3) How often the edit filters stop someone from publishing an edit

Many thanks in advance, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Upvote, good questions, I often recommend "pending review" as better than "semi", if there are enough watchers (of course IPs don't get the exact watcher data, it could be abused for spamming), but I have no supporting data apart from "worked for me on Sasha Grey" (the page was even unprotected later), "won't recommend it on Emma Chamberlain" (lots of IPs armed with social media gossip insisting on their idea of TRUE TRUTH), and a MEH on Talk:List of YouTubers, where getting an answer for a {{edit semiprotected}} once ended up in "fix archived unanswered request as implicitly answered" before I unarchived it.
The fock+purn edit filter for references is rather silly (example), and a YouTube filter not allowing IPs to fix an erroneous channel= to a correct user= could be "more good than harm". Filter editors presumably watch the effect of their filters in the logs + false positive reports. WP:RS deprecated + WT:WHITELIST are also interesting, there are some "chilling effects" (example). – (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to see the pages that send the most traffic to another article?

I've been using which shows how many times an article has been accessed, but I'd also like to know which pages are directing the most traffic to these articles. Is there a tool that shows this? --Danielklein (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Danielklein. The short answer is no. I understand where you're coming from, and it would be fabulous to have a Google Analytics-style way of understanding traffic flow and visitor depth, TOS etc. But I'm not aware of any such functionality on the (just over) 6,000,000 articles we have here. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Nick Moyes. Is it possible somehow to order "What links here" by number of article views? That would be a proxy for the information I'm looking for. --Danielklein (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Danielklein, it would be feasible, but I don't know of any special page on which would achieve this. There may or may not be a tool for it yet, but it could certainly be created if there is not. Are you looking to do one article at a time? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 03:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Dreamy Jazz, yes, I'm just interested in a particular article at the moment which has thousands of articles linking to it (many-to-one). If there is an API (or two) that can get the referring articles, then query them for views, that would do the trick! --Danielklein (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Citations and wikitables

I wanna summarise the ancient things as many written in the bible, to explain alot of what they are, is it apropiate to cite using bible?

And tables, why tables on editing section different from that of other articles I've read? and what one can do to make them look like that of other articles?Se pinya (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Se pinya, and welcome to the Teahouse. It would only be OK to cite the bible (or key books of other religions) if you were using that citation as a primary source to demonstrate a statement made in that book (e.g. The Bible, The Bible and violence, The Bible and humor) where the article's purpose is to show how other reliable sources have interpreted how the bible presents that topic. What would not be acceptable if you were to try to cite the bible in order to promote your own world view on something, such as Age of the Earth or Evolution or Law or Homosexuality. You would need to remember that this is an encyclopaedia of notable topics, collating information from reliable sources. When in doubt, it is best to make a suggestion for an edit on an article talk page and see what other editors feel about it, first.
As for your second question about tables, I didn't fully understand what you were describing. Please provide a link or url to some articles to help us understand your question better. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Enzo Camporeale, may not conform to some of's guidelines, and may not be retained.

Hello, I read your message about article Enzo Camporeale. Thank you for letter. In 2015, I made this page. If it is not difficult for you to explain what mistakes there are. Thanks, Regards MadamButerfly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadamButerfly (talkcontribs) 01:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi MadamButerfly. The main problem with Enzo Camporeale is that there aren't really any citations to reliable sources being provided which show (1) that Camporeale is notable per WP:BIO or WP:COMPOSER for a article to be written about him or (2) allows the content in the article to be properly verified as explained in WP:BLPSOURCES. There are lots of details about him in the article and most likely it's all true; however, none of it can be verified. There are other formatting and tone issues with the article as well, but the main things is the lack of citations to reliable sources. If the article ends up being nominated or tagged for deletion it will because of the lack of proper sourcing. Can you find an sources (even non-English ones) which provide significant coverage of Camporeale that goes beyond casual mentions, concert listings, and other "trivial" types of coverage? If you can do that, then the article could possibly be cleaned up written to reflect what's in those sources. If not, then it might just be a case of being WP:TOOSOON for an article to be written about Camporeale. A poorly written/formatted article about a notable person can generally be cleaned up per WP:PRESERVE, but the greatest writing in the world is not really going to save an article about a non-notable subject from being deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you that you answered fast!
I understood. Thanks for explanation.
I will have to turn to him to provide some material to make it visible and dignified.
As far as I know this year he had 2 interviews on Italian television and the interview was placed by a television channel on the Youtube. But more detailed and accurate information I will have to get directly from the composer.
Regards MadamButerfly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MadamButerfly (talkcontribs) 03:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi again MadamButterfly. You should look for relible sources which are independent of Camporeale or anyone/anything connected to him. is actually more interested, so to speak, in what others have written about him then what he has said or written about himself. Any source too closely connected to Camporeale (e.g. a personal website, a business office that repreents him, his agent, etc.) is going to be considered a primary source which is going to have to be used very carefully as explained in WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:BLPSPS, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SELFPUB. It's better to look for articles, books, etc. written about Camporeale published in reliable sources which are written by persons completely unconnected to Camporeale. Any interviews that Camporeale may have given are also going to be considered a primary source (see WP:INTERVIEW) and may only be able to be cited for certain types of content. Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability, so if there are no secondary sources giving him the type of significant coverage needed to meet one of's notability guidelines, then it's going to be harder to keep the article about him from being deleted. In addition, if you yourself are connected to Camporeale either personally or professionally in anything more than a casual way, then you probably should carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, particulary WP:COISELF and WP:FCOI, because this connection may mean that you should try and avoid creating or adding any more content about Camporeale to.
Finally, some other general things. You don't need to start a new discussion thread each time you want to add a comment to an already ongoing discussion; you can just add your comment to end of the other discussion. Moreover, you should always WP:SIGN your talk page comments in style because it makes it easier for others to see who posted what and when. If you're not sure how to do this, please look at WP:TILDE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Linking to a specific list entry

I am trying to link to a specific entry on this page:

Is there any way to link to the specific entry, or do I have to link the main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaflemon (talkcontribs) 01:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Leaflemon. You'll find more information about linking (more specifically "Wikilinking") at WP:WIKILINK, but it is possible to link directly to a section of an article. So, for example, instead of linking to List of monastic houses in County Armagh, you could link to any subsection of the article like List of monastic houses in County Armagh#Alphabetical listing of establishments. Linking to an individual entry in a particular table, however, is a bit more complicated if the entry itself doesn't have a WP:ARTICLE written about it. You are going to have to bascially create something in the table for the the specific entry (see WP:ANCHOR and WP:LINKPART) for the software to link to, i.e. you need to create a hook that it can latch on to for linking purposes. Whether this will work for you, I'm not sure but I think in theory it should. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Note that another user could edit the table at any point to remove the anchor, so it shouldn't be considered permanent. --Danielklein (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Lack of evidence of notability of Sri Lankan films

I have previously raised the issue of Sri Lankan film notability with Gihan Jayaweera, but he has not replied to any of the messages I posted on his talk page. He has, however, replied to me here. I am still concerned that most of the film articles Gihan has created are not notable enough, or have not been proven to be notable enough for inclusion on. As an example, James Bond (2005 film) (a Sri Lankan comedy) has two references, one which probably mentioned the film at the time it was linked but doesn't now, and the other which is merely a list of Sri Lankan films, so proves its existence, not its notability. The article was flagged for exactly this issue as its second edit two weeks after it was created in 2017, and has not been addressed since. The vast majority of Sri Lankan film articles have exactly the same problem. It would be better to have hundreds of notable articles on Sri Lankan topics than thousands of unnotable ones. --Danielklein (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Check out WP:PROD, it's a "no questions asked" low level proposed deletion procedure:
  1. add {{PROD|reason}} at the top of the page and preview the effect, it will holler and ask for a subst:PROD substitution. Your edit summary has to mention "deletion" for clarity. The reason can be "multiple issues incl. NN since 2017" or similar, short, no essay.
  2. save + read the output, there's a suggestion (= template) how to inform the main contributor(s) on their user talk pages, copy it to your clipboard.
  3. check the edit history, determine the main contributor(s), and paste the suggested PROD info on their user talk pages from your clipboard.
Before you do this check the edit history + talk page for obvious indications of an older PROD or AFD, after an old PROD or AFD a new PROD is invalid, and the magic to block this does not always work. After you did this everybody is free to contest the PROD (= remove it) with or without reason. Or endorse it (= add an Old PROD info + endorsement on the talk page). Or ignore it until the PROD reaches its timeout, and an admin either deletes the page or finds a bug in the PROD (old AFD etc.) – (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


I'm a relatively new editor, and have decided to help by trying to deal with vandalism, whilst doing this i stumble across these two edits: 1 2 I feel that these two edits might have an Npov issue and would like some help with managing it All hail Armok (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for catching that blatant COI series of edits, All hail Armok. I reverted them and warned the editor in question.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Note that, once you have enough edits and enough time on, which you do, All hail Armok, you can be bold and do what I did.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

need suggestion to create reference

i want to create reference on Systrip for the sentence "It had been used to analyze various real biological data." i would like to refer from!po=0.268817. after reading Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference and Help:Referencing for beginners, i am undecided. there are many authors in reference hyperlink and there seems to no exact date. what is the simplest way to create or provide articles with excellent reference examples. Leela52452 (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: If you click on the "Additional article information" link, it goes to the citation details of the article. Using the editor citation toolbar, choose "Cite journal" in the dropdown, enter the PMID (22629572) in the PMID field, and click on the search button beside the field. It then populates many of the fields, which you should verify are correct. It sets the Pages field to the complete range of pages of the article, which is 270-80 (incorrectly using a hyphen instead of an endash). Find the page in the article that verifies the statement, put it in the Page field, and remove the 270-80 from the Pages field. Add the PMC id (3361690, without the "PMC" in front) to the PMC field and the URL ( ) to the URL field. If the page is 270, this is the result:
<ref name="PMC-3361690">{{cite journal last1=Copeland first1=WB last2=Bartley first2=BA last3=Chandran first3=D last4=Galdzicki first4=M last5=Kim first5=KH last6=Sleight first6=SC last7=Maranas first7=CD last8=Sauro first8=HM title=Computational tools for metabolic engineering journal=Metabolic engineering date=May 2012 volume=14 issue=3 page=270 doi=10.1016/j.ymben.2012.03.001 pmid=22629572 url= accessdate=24 January 2020 pmc=3361690}}</ref>
—[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
+1, found no missing authorlinkn=… ignoring Bryan Bartley as unrelated (and cursing silly middle initials by the WASP.) You can use quote=It had been used to analyze various real biological data in {{cite journal}} if desired. This source suggests how they like to be cited, and the Medicine WikiProject would be upset if you cite unreliable sources. – (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Someone has deleted LittleGhostBoo/Story

It said that the page was not to be deleted because it was kept for humorous reference, but it has been fully deleted. Is that allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroe Of Time (talkcontribs) 08:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

LittleGhostBoo/Story never existed, please wikilink the lost subpage here, this should be shown as red link. – (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Heroe Of Time. Any article can be deleted for the reasons explained in Wikipedia:Deletion if it's deemed to be about a subject which is not considered to meet any of Wikipedia's various notability guidelines or is otherwise deemed to have too many serious problems to be fixed. There are various methods of deletion, but it's hard to no which one was applied here without knowing the actual name of the article which was deleted. Can you provide a link to the article for reference to make it easier for a Teahouse host to try and figure out what happened. Just as a general reference, articles whose only encyclopedic value is that they might be a "humorous reference" are unlikely to be kept per Wikipedia:What is not. Such an article may go unnoticed for years, but being around for a long time is not a justification in and of itself for keeping the article as explained in WP:LONGTIME. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
A ha. I think I found what you're referring to. Are you asking about User:Littleghostboo/Story? That was a user page not an article, which means it's subject to a different policy altogether. User pages need to comply with Wikipedia:User pages and those which don't can be deleted. This particular user page was deleted per speedy deletion criterion U5 which is generally done when the content on user page falls under Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?. I'm not an administrator so I can't see the page anymore, but most likely the content was a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST.
Why are you concerned about the deletion of another account's user page? Just asking out of curiosity. Sometimes content that's deemed not suitable for a user page can be retrieved so that it can be posted on some other website more suitable for hosting such content. If that's what you'd like to do, try asking the administrator who deleted the page to send you the content by email. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "