Archive 870

←

Archive 873

Archive 874

Archive 875

Archive 876

Archive 877

→

Archive 880

I am trying to place an English translation of the image description on the above image file. Something is wrong with my syntax, though. Can you direct me to the WP page concerning translated image descriptions and how to make the proper translation appear with the image as it is viewed full-sized when clicked on in the En version of the article? Thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Quisqualis. You can see the changes that needed done here. It's basically {{LANGUAGE CODE|TEXT OF THE CAPTION}}, where the language code is the two letter abbreviation, de for German, en for English, so on and so forth. GMG^talk 22:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant! For my future reference, GreenMeansGo, as I am sick today, can you give me a link to the instructions on WP?

Hey Quisqualis. It's a bit more complicated unfortunately. The image is on our sister project Wikimedia Commons, and not on the English Wikipedia. Each individual language also has its own template. So for example, the instructions for the English version is at c:Template:En, the French version is at c:Template:Fr, so on and so forth. But they're all pretty much the same, just the brackets {{|}} with the two letter language code and the text. GMG^talk 22:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the instructions. I'll make a note of them.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that there is an article about the now-defunct Record World/Music Vendor magazine that published a music chart from October 1954-April 1982 yet no listing of the number one songs on that chart as of yet. Does anyone think a listing of all the number-one songs on that chart would be considered a notable enough subject for an article? The thing is I'm not sure if there's enough reliable sources for the creation of an article. The only two sources I can find are this website (http://hitsofalldecades.com/chart_hits/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1441&Itemid=52) which has all the weekly top 20 charts but I'm unsure if it should be considered reliable enough and this website which only has some of the actual issues (https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Record_World.htm.) What do you all think about this idea and lastly if you think this is notable enough do you think I should do this for each year or have all the songs on one page?

Saf95 (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Before I explain anything, I think I should let you know that this bug occured on Gamepedia, but both Gamepedia and Wikipedia are powered by mediaWiki so the solution should transfer.

I recently was editing approximately 58 pages at once. I would have all of them open in separate tabs and when my work was done, I would scroll all the way down on each page, hold my mouse over the "Save changes" button and then click, ctrl+tab, click, ctrl+tab, and so on until all the pages were saved. For every page I was editing, I would either add or remove a category.

The problem I'm having is that some of the pages do not go into the category I put them in. Furthermore, some of the pages the got their category removed remain in said category. What makes this even stranger is that a few pages' edits went through, and were added to or removed from their respective categories like they should have done.

The first thing I did was leave the website and come back to it because at first I thought it would refresh in its own. I came back 2 hours later and the pages still appeared in the wrong category. I've tried purging the category page, but that did not do anything noticeable. I've also tried adding some temporary text to one of the pages to try to refresh the category, but that did not help either.

I'm super confused and I'm not sure how to fix this problem. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. --Diriector Doc (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diriector Doc, welcome to the Teahouse. Please post an example link to a page with the problem. In the English Wikipedia, category pages are updated quickly when member pages are edited (but sometimes slowly when categories are added or removed via a template and only the template is edited). PrimeHunter (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, my edits were not made on the English Wikipedia. The were pages on Gamepedia, more specifically the Brawhalla Gamepedia. I was adding an removing categories from a bunch of files.

These files were removed from Category:Screenshots and added to Category:Character images and do not show up in either category:

• File:Azoth.png
• File:Lord Vraxx.png

These files were removed form Category:Character images and then added to Category:Unused Files (via template) but remain in Category:Character_images and were not added to Category:Unused_Files:

• File:Bear'dvar Icon.jpg
• File:Big Rig Bodvar Icon.jpg

This file was removed form Category:Character images and then added to Category:Unused Files (via template) and does not show up in either category:

• File:Atomic Orion Icon.jpg (although this file has since been edited, so it could be a result of that instead)

These files were added to Category:Character images after previously having no category and appear in the correct category like they should:

• File:Xull.png
• File:Yumiko.png

These files were removed form Category:Character images and then added to Category:Unused Files (via template) and appear in the correct category like they should:

• File:High Impact Sentinel Icon.jpg
• File:Ada.jpg

Not every file was mentioned as it would take to long to list, but from these examples, the results are inconstant and almost random.

I'm not sure what can be said given this info, but maybe some research can be done on the site or something.--Diriector Doc (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Upon Further testing, I managed to fix the problem, but the solution is quite inefficient. I wanted to see what happened if I added it back to the category and then undid my edit. That worked. Before when I was testing temporary edits, it was just some text and not category editing. My theory is that adding a category via template and removing one at the same time causes this glitch. I can't say for certain though, and it is very likely that I am wrong.

Anyway, adding the category back, saving the changes, and then undoing the changes is a valid solution, so if this glitch happens to anyone else, this is one way to fix it.--Diriector Doc (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I currently have a peer review of Terminator 2 on so if you have any opinions on how to make the article better, please help as they are much appreciated--I love rpgs (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I love rpgs. I'm afraid your post here is not really that relevant. Not that you aren't welcome here (!), but the Teahouse is aimed at assisting newcomers in editing, whereas WP:PEERREVIEW is a highly technical process, especially as I assume your intention is to take Terminator 2: Judgment Day from a WP:GOOD ARTICLE up to a WP:FEATUREDARTICLE. I think this is well beyond the level we tend to work at, and we don't really want to encourage everyone to post their peer review and other requests here, too. Whilst there is an automatic notification on that article's Talk Page, you could also open a new topic on that page to highlight that you have committed to take the process forward and to integrate any suggestions that arise through it. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I believe that the wikipedia contributor who created an article for my company is now trying to vandalize it by removing it with no justification. The company he was hired through has asked me to provide his IP address so that they can verify that it is him and take action. Is there any way I can get a contributor's IP address if I have his user name? Is there any other action I can take to prevent his continued efforts to vandalize the article? Thank you.Brandmarketing (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Brandmarketing: You'll need to tell us the username and article in question. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Brandmarketing. Wikipedia takes vandalism seriously: it is generally reverted on sight, and the perpetrator warned, and blocked if they do it repeatedly. But the definition of vandalism is "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". Editing that you disapprove of is not necessarily vandalism, and I would caution you against using the word recklessly. Proposing an article for deletion could be vandalism, but the deletion will not happen without review, and must be performed by an administrator, so vandalism of that kind is rare. I think it is extermely unlikely that Wikipedia will make any information known to you about an editor, other than what that editor has chosen to make public. But as Ian.thomson says, we can't really answer any questions until you tell us which article you are talking about. --ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine and Ian.thomson. This was a case of an author removing an article he wrote for us completely (not making edits) in retaliation for a negative review on the freelancer website he was hired (and paid) through. I have to decide if I want to publicly call him out because I fear further retaliation or other inappropriate behavior. I was hoping that there was a less public way to have this addressed so that he doesn't mistreat other clients, and I don't want to escalate an already unpleasant situation. Another Wikipedia contributor was finally able to restore the article after an attempted reversal by the original author.Brandmarketing (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Brandmarketing: You can press this link to email me the relevant details (the hired individual and the article in question) if you'd rather not publicly post the information. If I don't have that information, I can't come up with an assessment as to what I can do to help or at least advise you on. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

When you hire a person to write a Wikipedia article about you, you relinquish any control you thought you had over that article. Anyone can (and likely will) edit it, according to reliable sources, whether flattering or not so much. The person you hired to write the article has a gigantic WP:Conflict of interest, and must declare it or be in much trouble regarding their ability to edit WP (blocks and worse may occur). If your article fails to reappear, you can always sue the hired writer in the courts of your country, but that's about all the control you have here.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for enlightening me, there's obviously a lot more to this than I realized--I didn't know about the COI aspect, so I appreciate you filling me in on that Quisqualis. I think it's best to just move on and let the Wikipedia community organically find and edit the page at this point.

How do I wiki????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Quiet Man (talk • contribs) 03:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, The Quiet Man. Start by playing a game called The Wikipedia Adventure. It is very informative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No further details then what is stated within the subject/headline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.244.241.219 (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Table of contents is self-creating, based on the section headings you create in your article. Section headings are fomatted as:[==Section heading==], without the brackets, with initial capitalization of the first word only (unless any other words are normally capitalized). Sub-sections are formatted as [===Sub-section===], and sub-sub sections as [====Sub-sub section====], etc.

These headings, in American Revolutionary War, will render for example as:

In a real article, the Table of Contents will be automatically numbered and indented. Notes, Further reading, External links, etc. are just major sections you create, that come after the body of the article. References create themselves from your inline citations. An Infobox is based on a template, such as for a sport, a person, a company etc. You can read about these at:

• WP:Infobox
• WP:Inline citation
• WP:Table of contents←(not for beginners!)

Hope this helps.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Teahouse I work for the Buhle Farmers' Academy (www.buhle.org.za), a non-profit organisation that trains new farmers from South Africa, and several surrounding countries, to build up and manage profitable and sustainable farms. We have been doing this for 18 years and have many funders and several partnerships with government organisations (e.g. some provincial agriculture departments use our trainers to train farmers they need to empower). This work is important for successful land reform - a thorny and urgent issue - in South Africa. We are non-political, and do not take sides in the land reform debate. We just provide the training that farmers need. We would like to create a page about our academy and its work. Would this be possible? I am happy to edit other entries in order to quality as a page creator, but thought I should ask this question to be sure. Several media stories have been published about our work. I am happy to provide these if it helps. With thanks, Jo-Anne Smetherham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josmetherham (talk • contribs) 13:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @Josmetherham: and welcome. We're always glad to have someone who knows about things we don't know.

First thing is to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Second, write a WP:User page about yourself, your work, and your intention in Wikipedia.

Third, probably a whole new page is not the best way to start. I notice that Agriculture in South Africa is not a very long article, and you could add a section about farmer education, including of course your own. After other editors have criticised and improved it (it's likely to take at least a week) you should discuss with them the question of separating that material into a new article. Yes, it's a bit complicated, but indirect methods like this tend to be more successful. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Josmetherham I would add that you will also need to review the paid editing policy; compliance with it is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use for paid editors. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jim.henderson. Thank you. That is very helpful. I shall go about it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.145.82 (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey - so I'd like to record the "Zouave Cadets Quickstep" to add to United Zouave Cadets. The sheet music (published 1860) is well out of copyright. I have considered two approaches:

1. Perform and record it myself which, of course, I could release as Own Work to the Commons. However, I'd prefer a more skilled pianist than myself record it. Therefore, my second option is ...
2. Commission someone to perform it.

In the case of #2, where a work is done for hire and I was the hiring party, would I be able to upload it to Wikipedia released as "Own Work?" Or, would the performer have to do so? Chetsford (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If you own the copyright to a work, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons (used by more projects than just Wikipedia) and release it under a free license. You wouldn't simply call it an "own work", though; in the description you'd separately identify the performer and the copyright holder. Do note that there is more to a legal "work made for hire" than hiring someone to make the work--you'd want a proper written agreement to that effect. See the U.S. Copyright Office's Circular 9 for a starting point. Kim Post (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

An alternative might be to create a MIDI file and record a computer or keyboard playing it. The result will not sound as good as a skilled player, but can sound much better than an amateur player. Dbfirs 07:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sirs,

Further to our communication on 10 December 2018 and prior correspondence, we are instructed by our client, Mr. Joe Marten to highlight further inaccuracies in your post as follows:-

a) Carl Freer was never at all a Director of Iqnect Pte Ltd in Singapore. Our client is no longer a Director of Iqnect Pte Ltd and your post fails to highlight this fact and that Iqnect Pte Ltd now has a new and different Board of Directors. Again, we repeat, that your post is malicious and libelous of our client as our client was not the subject of any fraud investigation or allegation in regard to Gizmondo Europe Limited at all. Please immediately take down the references to our client in this regard.

May we hear from you please?

Thank you MESSRS TITO ISAAC & CO LLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.228.48 (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP user. Please stop making legal threats. I agree that the article on Carl Freer needs to be cleaned up and checked for accuracy, but the place to bring that up is at [[Talk:Carl Freer|the talk page of that article. Also, your previous post here got some answers, were they of any use to you? rchard2scout (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Am trying to publish and keep getting an HTTP 404 - Something went wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talk • contribs) 09:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Chemicalnasties: Editing seems to work, otherwise you couldn't post here. Can you tell us which URL you were on when this happened and what you did? Also, was there an error code? MediaWiki, the software that powers Wikipedia, does not afaik output HTTP 404 errors on any /wiki URLs. Regards SoWhy 09:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Au_Go_Go_fire

Simply went 'Publish Changes'. The only message is a dialog box with HTTP 404 - Something went wrong and a dismiss option. Have diabled all blockers etc thinking that may be involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This related?

https://www.giantbomb.com/forums/bug-reporting-33/unable-to-save-wiki-or-list-edits-1424896/?page=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually URL of my edit is;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Au_Go_Go_fire?veswitched=1&veaction=edit&oldid=864539670 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talk • contribs) 09:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I can see the edits in chrome but when logged in to internet sxplorer cannot see them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talk • contribs) 09:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I just tried editing the article in both Firefox and Chrome, even using the URL you used and it worked as expected ([1]). Can you create a screenshot and upload it here? Regards SoWhy 10:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Can't upload any files here. Did a small edit on another tab and it worked so I will just manually redo the changes. Consider this closed. Thanks.

Hello,

problem is as titled. What's the procedure in these instances? I am sorry for the silly question but I am quite new to wikiepdia editing.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimiur (talk • contribs) 20:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cimiur. Its not a silly question at all, though it would help immensely if you supplied a link to the picture (I assume its on Wikimedia Commons?), and explained your precise concerns to us. My first instinct would be see if the original image uploader is still an active user and, if they are, I'd drop them a note. Failing that, I might consider leaving a summary of my concerns on the talk page on Commons. If fixing the issue is a simple case of downloading the image from Wikimedia Commons, editing it, and uploading a new version, then (unless there's some restriction on creatimg derivative works, most likely do have the right to fix and replace it. But all these scenarios may be irrelevant. Lets wait until you give us more details of the image and the issues you've got with it. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nick thanks for your answer, here's the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SynthesisofGrubbs1stGen.png

The problem in the image is that on the second arrow there are only solvent and temperature without the reagent which would be tricyclohexylphosphine (PCy₃). Most likely the image was made with Chemdraw, so either the original uploader has still got the file and he can change it in no time or it needs to be made again. Or if you are good with Photoshop you can do that as well I guess. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimiur (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cimiur. File:SynthesisofGrubbs1stGen.png is a Commons file; so, you'll have to upload a new corrected version of it to Comomns. The original uploader was c:User:Vdubbs, but that person doesn't seem to be active on Commons anymore or Wikipedia (User:Vdubbs) any longer. You can downloaded the Commons file, correct the mistake, and then reupload it as a "updated version" if you want; just make sure to describe the changes you make. You can also create a new version from scratch, upload it as a separate file, and then just replace the old version with your version wherever the file is being used. If you're not sure how to create/correct the file perhaps someone at c:COM:GL or at WT:CHEM can help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a fix-it shop for images. Click the "Illustration workshop" tab, then follow the instructions. Be very very specific about positioning, font style, size, weight, and explain your thinking thoroughly and systematically. Mention that the original author is inactive on WP. Best of luck!--Quisqualis (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your answers I'll see what I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimiur (talk • contribs) 15:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm having issues with Lowercase Sigmabot III. I'm trying to make it archive pages with date names, but it's not working. The strange thing is, I've tried making incremental archives, and they worked. Σ's talk page said to ask here, so I am.
Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 14:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi CrazyMinecart88. I guess you refer to User talk:CrazyMinecart88. There is currently nothing to archive with the default minthreadstoarchive = 2 and minthreadsleft = 5 at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo#Parameters explained. You only have 5 threads. On December 10 you had 6 threads but that still didn't permit to both archive at least 2 and leave at least 5. Archiving only happened when you temporarily changed those parameters in [2]. I don't think the archiving happened because you changed the archive naming. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:

Not quite what I meant, but thanks anyway!

Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 15:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@CrazyMinecart88: You didn't request anything else so I assume your problem is resolved. If not then please clarify what you expect to be archived from which page. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:

Resolved

Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 16:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have complained earlier about this issue, a movie named The villain(kannada language)have grossed more than 100 crores and is removed from all theatres.please update that list.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anchitya (talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Anchitya. SUHAS JAYANNA said this at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films#The villain highest grossing kannada movie, and Cyphoidbomb replied that "Filmibeat is not considered a reliable source for financial data". If you want the change made, find a more reliable source (or argue the case for Filmibeat) and continue that discussion there. Going somewhere else and complaining really doesn't achieve very much (well, it got me to answer you, but I had to get over my unwillingness to argue with a complainer. WP:SOFIXIT was what first came to mind.) Also, please sign your posts here. --ColinFine (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

A short list of reliable and unreliable sources in the context of Indian entertainment can be found at WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to redirect a page to an anchor tag? If so, how do I construct the link? Thanks all! *sips tea* — Preceding unsigned comment added by J spaine (talk • contribs) 17:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you can redirect to a subsection. The easiest way to do this is to click on the section from the table of contents, and then cut and paste the tail end of the URL as the redirect link, like Colin R. Turner#Bibliography. If you want to create a redirect page, the code is #REDIRECT [[Page name]] or #REDIRECT [[Page name#Section title]], depending on where you want to redirect to. Hope this helps. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Here;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Au_Go_Go_fire

How do I link the sfn eg: Ref 2 to the bibliography?

Here is an example of it working (see ref 2 again);

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ramirez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talk • contribs) 10:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Chemicalnasties. Please sign all your posts here with four tildes (~~~~). In order to use a reference in that way, the easiest way is to put the bibliography item in a Cite template such as {{Cite book}}, and add the parameter "|ref=harv". You can see how I've done that here. rchard2scout (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Into which field do I put ref=harv. Reading here should it be in the anchor field? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_book#Parameters

Attempted it but did not seem to work. Once it is done do I have to redo the sfn entries I have already done or will they automatically link? Thanks Chemicalnasties (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Got it. I see you did do it and I have to recreate any existing links to make it work. Thanks. Chemicalnasties (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

Recently my article was declined and I figured out why it was declined. I respect the decision. What are you looking for in an article that would be accepted? And if I was to change it, could i just edit the old article or do I have to create a new one?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey Moody98 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Davey Moody98 and welcome to the Teahouse. You might like to read WP:Autobiography, WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Referencing for beginners, and WP:Notability. You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which the subject has been written about in detail, and summarise what is written in those sources. Most of us here will never have articles about ourselves because Wikipedia does not host autobiographies. Dbfirs 07:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This must be about Draft:Davey Moody. In principle, you can work on it and try to improve it; nothing would be achieved by creating a new version. But no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Maproom (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No references, no article. References need to be what people have written about Davey Moody, not what Moody has written himself. David notMD (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

and also how can I easily make autmated edits without autowiki browser or huggle ?see topic above thanks --I love rpgs (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome! Here's the user access info you're looking for Wikipedia:User access levels#User groups. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Want to reproduce the Carlo 1996 referencing here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ramirez#CITEREFCarlo1996 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talk • contribs) 09:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

HI Chemicalnasties. References in Visual Editor are tricky but improving. At the moment to use this type of reference, which is {{sfn}}, click on Insert rather than Cite, then choose Template. At "Add a Template" type sfn and click Add template. Now you will see the fields for the template. Put Carlo in "1", 1996 in "2", and the page numbers in "p" then click Insert. The reference will be there. However Visual Editor will not show the reference in the reference list and will not let you preview to see the reference. But it will be there once you Publish. Hope this helps. Currently doing anything complicated with references is best done with the source editor. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Worked. Thanks.Chemicalnasties (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I tried to make one simple edit as a new user and have hit behaviour I have trouble understanding from another experienced editor. I made a simple and factual edit only to have it deleted citing policy. When I could not see how the policy invalidated my edit and asked for clarification, the editor did not give it. He has decided to delete the whole section that my edit was made in again citing, without justification, the policy. In doing so he has deleted content that definitely does not contravene the policy. In addition, he had the page locked so that I could not make edits without his review even though I did not try to nor did I engage in any behaviour other than asking for reversal and explanation on the talk page. I would appreciate someone who is more experienced to look over this. Is this normal behaviour on Wikipedia? If it is I am probably going to quit using or considering to donate because it seems the information quality is debased by this kind of behavior. This has been a very poor experience for a new user who was motivated to join and make a change because something I saw was out of date. The talk page where I have detailed this is Talk:Low-carbohydrate_diet#Position_of_major_governmental_and_medical_organizations. MetabolicMadness (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi MetabolicMadness. You were WP:BOLD and subsequently WP:REVERTed; so, you shoulld now continue to follow WP:BRD. FWIW, when you make a change to an article that is reverted based on specific policy/guideline reasons, the onus is actually on you to establish a consensus in favor of the change(s) you want to make. The best way to do this is to show how relevant policies and guidelines support your position; if your argument is reasonable and follows relevant policies and guidelines, others will likely support it.

As for quiting the project or not donating to the project, you can decide to do one or both of those things if you want. However, claiming you're going to do such things is sometimes seen by others as a bit of WP:PRAM or WP:NOTHERE behaviour and isn't going to help establish a consensus in your favor. Your best bet here is to continue Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and give others interested in the subject matter a chance to comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I thought I made a strong case as you can see in the talk page. The behaviour to completely delete the section (with existing content) seems to be a further denial because I pointed out these were strong tertiary sources. It seems no one has read or no one cares about these changes and no one except me and the other editor have written anything. As to being WP:PRAM or WP:NOTHERE it's not so much a threat, it's just how I feel at this kind of behaviour (reverting first the change, then when I made a case, locking the page and deleting the whole section to deny the validity of such information at all) when I made a small factual change which I don't regard as WP:BOLD ie contentious at all and worthy of reversion. No one else seems to care about this on the talk page beyond a sole editor who has more rights than a newbie to have a discussion and establish consensus. Wouldn't that make you question the value of Wikipedia's content & make you reluctant to try other changes? MetabolicMadness (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:BOLD means we as editors are OK in going ahead and trying to make improvements to articles without feeling the need to discuss things in advance or get some form of pre-approval. If the edits we make are seen as others as being improvements, they'll stick; if not, they'll probably be undone completely of further improved upon in some way by another editor. If nobody says anything, then it's OK to assume WP:SILENCE until somebody does. If an edit we make is eventually undone by another editor, either shortly thereafter or even after some time has passed, then it's time for us to follow WP:BRD, unless the removal is a clear case of vandalism or a pretty significant policy/guideline violation. The talk page discussion you started is only a day old and is about an article which might not be being watched by tons of editors; so, you're probably not going to get a lot of responses right away. Maybe you should try posting a Template:Please see at some of the WikiProject talk pages listed at the top of the talk page or even at WT:MEDRS to let others know about the discussion. As long as you keep the post simple and don't appear to be WP:CANVASing, there's nothing wrong with trying to get others involved in the discussion. Try and remember that all editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs who sometimes get WP:BUSY; so, it may take some time before someone else responds.

You should also try and stick to discussing the content in question and avoid commenting on contributors themselves; moving discussions in such a direction often makes things worse and things are often posted which turn out later to be untrue; for example, the other editor didn't "lock" the article; it was protected by an administrator back in July 2018 because of some serious disruption.

Finally, this is just my own personal opinion, but your edit was not a small factual change and certainly is not a minor edit. The edit you made was the very first one made by your account and was made to an article which has a history of being disrupted, and it was reverted by an editor who appears to be very experienced in dealing with these types of articles and with WP:MEDRS; so, it doesn't seem totally surprising that your edit was undone. Now, you just have to establish a consensus for making the change on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As noted, the proper place for this debate is the Talk page of the article itself. I sympathize with your frustration, because you have already been doing that at length and the only person participating is the one who you are opposing. I suggest patience. Other edits may join the discussion. Nothing is lost - all previous additions (and deletions) are preserved in View history. And if you look at View history, you will see that you are neither the first nor likely the last person wanting to make sizable changes to this article. In the meantime, consider editing other articles. David notMD (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, it's been quite some time since I've contributed to Wikipedia. While browsing Web scraping#United_States, I noticed a line tacked on at the end of the section that seems to be unsourced opinion. Specifically:

Internet Archive collects and distributes significant number of publicly available webpages without it is considered to be copyright violation.

It's quite difficult to determine the meaning of, and seems to be someone's personal gripe with the Internet Archive rather than something that belongs on the page.

It was added back in April 2018, and I'm not sure if there should be discussion on the Talk page, or something of the sort before removing that line.

Caffeinewriter (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced opinion indeed, with bad grammar to boot! Go ahead and remove it, Caffeinewriter. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate it A lad insane. I had a feeling that was the correct course of action, but better safe than sorry. Cheers, and

Resolved

Caffeinewriter (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Currently on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower there is a reference link to our companies blog article (The Bouqs Companyu) but the link is going to a website scraper called web archive. I would like to update this link to point the article on our website here: https://preview.bouqs.com/blog/9-thoughts-people-really-think-when-receiving-flowers/ to gain this link back. Could anyone help me with how I should proceed? I have never edited on Wikipedia yet and have very low permissions.

Thank you for you help! Tiffany The Bouqs Company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seobouqs (talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Seobouqs. You should definitely not do this. Blogs are not reliable sources, and you have a conflict of interest. The link is promotional and does not belong on Wikipedia. Please comply with our paid editing disclosure, which is mandatory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, @Seobouqs: a quick check showed that the old version of your page better served the purposes of the Flower article, but that another website could do the job even better. So, we used that as a citation instead. Thank you for helping us improve Wikipedia. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Sad wish we had never asked for help to update was a very good link for us :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seobouqs (talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia does not exist to promote your business, or any other business. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have also nominated The Bouqs Company for deletion as there is no discernible evidence that they are notable enough for an article. Theroadislong (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am editing the article Internet censorship circumvention, and there is a table in the middle of the article in the "Software" section that provides similar info to one of the navboxes at the bottom ("Internet censorship circumvention technologies"). I'm thinking that the table itself doesn't offer much useful information, and it would be better just to incorporate its content into the navbox. However, I think it's helpful to have the list of software in the page, as opposed to at the bottom where it might be missed. Could I replace the table in the article with the navbox template, or is it convention to not put navboxes in the middle of the page? Weinshel (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd leave it as is. The table allows greater detail and fits well in the article. The Navbox is not as detailed but serves well as a general guide to the overall ecosystem. I've never seen a navbox in the middle of a page - they are always at the bottom, per MOS:ORDER. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the feedback! Weinshel (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a hobbyist game developer, and recently got enough outside exposure to feel like it's worth making some sort of Wikipedia listing about my game, Nepenthe. However, I can’t seem to get the necessary dispassionate/authoritative tone down, so I'd really appreciate it if somebody unconnected with the industry could help me write it.

Here are the references I've collected so far (not sure if all of them are appropriate for Wikipedia):

The Store page itself: https://store.steampowered.com/app/789570/Nepenthe/

Indie Games +: https://indiegamesplus.com/2018/06/hand-drawn_rpg_nepenthe_offers

Digital Chumps: http://digitalchumps.com/nepenthe/

RPG Site: https://www.rpgsite.net/review/7234-nepenthe-review

Boston Bastard Brigade: http://www.bostonbastardbrigade.com/2018/07/nepenthe-pc-review/

Gaming Trend: http://gamingtrend.com/feature/reviews/tales-down-under-nepenthe-review/

Referenced in this article by Polygon: https://www.polygon.com/2018/10/19/17959138/steam-valve-developer-support-pricing-reviews

Original Kickstarter page: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/234429399/nepenthe-a-hand-drawn-bullet-hell-adventure-game

Thanks,

Yitzilitt (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Yitz

@Yitzilitt: If you read the reason why the article was rejected, you'd see that the problem is not simply tone but selection of sources. What you need are at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the game but in no way connected to you or its distributors. This will establish notability.

Of the sources you listed, the only ones with editorial boards (a pretty simple standard for what qualifies as professional and not just a blog registered in a shell company run by the blogger) are Indie Games+, Gaming Trend, and Polygon (however, Nepenthe is only mentioned in passing in the Polygon article, which is not the in-depth coverage required). I can't find any indication that the Digital Chumps or Boston Bastard Brigade has an editorial board. The rest are not independent.

Once you find a third source, follow these instructions for how to write an article that doesn't get rejected or deleted and there should be no further problems.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yitzilitt: Unfortunately, since it's your own game, writing about it runs you afoul of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. There's more general info here Wikipedia:Articles for creation. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: He was using the Articles for Creation process, he just didn't cite enough independent sources, which was why the draft was rejected. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I assumed there was no article since I didn't see a link. But did you see this? Nepenthe (video game)? Are we talking about a different video game? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah - I see - that's the article and it was just created.

Resolved

TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I recently started editing Wikipedia and I decided to start in the subject area I know best -- astronomy. I began by reviewing astronomical objects and I noticed that many objects were missing properties and others had extremely rough estimates of said properties. The sources provided in the articles did not provide the missing and estimated properties, so I decided to calculate them myself. I did not fill them in yet, but I was wondering if it would be possible to reference my math somehow so that I could provide a more complete and detailed description of the objects and include more precise (or just include altogether) distance, magnitude, luminosity, etc. If I can't do this, I completely understand. Thank you for your help. NickBar1213

Welcome to Wikipedia. This is specific to astronomy, so I suggest you post your comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Regards. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

On a more general note, what you are proposing is original research - not allowed. Have you searched for published content that matches or is close to your own calculations? A slow solution would be to get your work published in a peer-reviewed journal, and then hope that some other editor cites your work as improving the article (Wikipedia frowns on editors referencing their own work). David notMD (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I doubt I could get an article published (or could even write it) about one quality of a celestial body, but thank you for your help! Just, in case, I will hop over to the astronomy talk section to see what they think. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickBar1213 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I went through the Wikipedia Adventure thingy and thought I could use "Advanced" to set up headings in an existing page that I was adding to (for Ann B. Ross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_B._Ross?veaction=edit). But this is the second time (1st was on a sandbox project) I've tried to set up a reference heading but the footnote ended up somewhere else (the bottom of the page) instead of in the References section. So how do I get the link set up? Thanks.Tarkiwi25 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

See this edit. The explanation of the process is at WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

Although I'm old school enough to have been trained to save so often that doing so is something like a tic, I managed to get caught out this time. Several kind people went to the page and did various things before I got back to the page and found that I was stuck with an edit conflict. I know enough to check the View History, and the Edit Conflict instructions could show me some of the revisions. But this has not been a pleasant experience.

I had expected a message in response to my query, but since I didn't see a notice, e.g., under Talk, I resumed editing (without realizing that there would be a problem with saving my work).

While it might seem unreasonable for me to feel that what resulted is somewhat unfair, I rather wish that the three of you who responded directly on the page had stuck with telling me where to go rather than interfering. Because I didn't recognize that someone else had intervened, I came back to editing with more information gained from doing the research to make a real change to this page. But the edit conflict situation had gotten so entangled that I couldn't work my way through to sorting out my revisions within your collective revisions.

After copying my work onto a .docx, I gave up on editing the page and simply closed it to get out of the mess. I will attempt to resume my editing on what I hope will be a clean slate once I think you 3--and anyone else--might be done. It isn't at all that I have proprietary feelings about this page. I'm not a newbie to editing, but I am a newbie to Wikipedia editing. The way this has played out would probably dissuade someone less experienced with editing and less determined to edit on Wikipedia. Jus' sayin'.Tarkiwi25 (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

If info has been produced, leaving the audience at a cliff-hanger, can I sharea possibility? A new trailer came out for Godzilla: King of the Monsters, and I want to share the newest monster possibilities in the article. The ideas are pretty likely, but I need confirmation on wether or not sharing this info is allowed here.Anguirus3DS (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You have to be careful about including original research. See WP:OR. If your information is published somewhere in a reliable source, then you can include the info and cite the source. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I would lile to create and edit/add to pages about places in my hometown. But I don't want people knowing about my location. Is there a way I could have an anonymous account and not violate Wikipedia's alternate account policies? A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 03:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@A 10 fireplane: Unless you tell people offline what your Wikipedia user name is, or you ever say on here what your real name is, your account is already anonymous. Privacy is one of the purposes listed at WP:VALIDALT, though. The only indication as to your location is the statement that you're from Texas, which might as well be the biggest state in the US (what with Alaska being so empty and all). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:ok cool, I'm not to good with technology and wasn't sure if there was some way to know I was unaware of. Thank you A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 04:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The article York County, Virginia had its "Climate" subheading removed, and I replaced it, but the page layout is now messed up. I'd like to move the climate chart higher on the page, if possible, as there seems to be room for it. How do I do this? And, is that the best solution?--Quisqualis (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You could move the whole "Climate" subsection to above the two preceding subsections, but it would still look odd. The problem is caused by having a subsection with no text, just a graph. Maproom (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Quisqualis and Maproom: I made the graph to no float: Special:Diff/873454050. Please see if it looks OK now. --CiaPan (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for anchoring that chart. A little white space can be lived with!--Quisqualis (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_crushing

None of the external links is active, although the reference link is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.24.94.223 (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I have tagged the dead links as such. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I've created several articles, and before I could even get to work on the latest one, it was moved to Wikipedia:Drafts or draftspace.

Between my job, my recent firing of job, family problems, et cetera., I really don't have time to work on anymore articles or Wikipedia for a while.

I feel this is a noteworthy article. Here's the location: Draft:The Black Dahlia (graphic novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Black_Dahlia_(graphic_novel) and another important link: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Dahlia_noir_(bande_dessinée) .

Again I don't think I'll be able to contribute to Wikipedia for quite a long time. I also don't have time to make to article up to review, because it lacked sources or whatever (I wasn't given any time to make it up to review, not to mention this never happened to me before.) I feel the article is noteworthy, there are sources and citations, it has an article on the French wikipedia, and other reasons.

So I ask if someone, or some people can kindly help work on this and make it up to peer review or whatever is needed to make it up to standards Draft:The Black Dahlia (graphic novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Black_Dahlia_(graphic_novel). It would be a tremendous favor and I'd be extremely thankful for help. And I thank you in advance to the people who work and help on this.

Thank you, Merry Christmas, and God bless everyone. PeaceShield5 (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Graphic novel, you say? I'll take a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded File:Empires of Eve book cover.png as a fair use book cover for the article Empires of Eve. A number of bots have made changes to the image resulting it being shrunk, and now the book subtitle on the image cannot be read. I would appreciate some advice on what to do. I want the image to be readable and to be within Wikipedia image rules.--R2d232h2 (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse R2d232h2. The cover looks like just plain white text on plain black. If so, it is {{PD-simple}}. —teb728 t c 10:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Teb728: I have already uploaded the image as fair use, and it has already been shrunk. There are notices on the file and my talk page. How do I use {{PD-simple}} here?--R2d232h2 (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@R2d232h2: Upload it to Commons with a slightly different filename using the {{PD-text}} tag (that's the tag they use on Commons). Then change the article to use the Commons filename. (You don't need to ask for the en-wiki copy to be deleted, for when it is unused, it will be deleted as an unused non-free file.) —teb728 t c 11:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Done I've reverted to the previous higher quality version, transferred to Commons, and tagged the local file for deletion. Someone should come along soon and tidy up the remaining loose ends. GMG^talk 11:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.--R2d232h2 (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all R2d232h2. Thanks for helping us build a better encyclopedia! Feel free to drop back by if we can ever be of any help. GMG^talk 15:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)