Archive 925

←

Archive 928

Archive 929

Archive 930

Archive 931

Archive 932

→

Archive 935

Is there a setting which would cause wikipedia to send a notice if an article is edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artie Berns (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Artie Berns: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking through the Preferences available, I don't see such a setting. It's up to interested editors to monitor any pages they are interested in. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Artie Berns: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal has the option "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed". It requires email to be enabled in your account. See Help:Watchlist. There is no option to get an on-wiki notification at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Artie Berns: I was a bit confused by 331dot's reply to you. Maybe I misunderstood your question, but if you want to be alerted in some away when somebody else edits an article, that's quite possible. Providing you're OK for the notice to be sent by email. First, ensure you have linked an email address to your Wikipedia account, and then go to your Special:Preferences settings. At the bottom of the User Profile Tab you'll see "Email Options", and two tick boxes.

• Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist has changed
• Email me also for minor edits of pages and files

I find ticking the first box, but leaving the second blank means I don't get alerted to trivial changes such a typo corrections. It is for that reason that we ask editors only to mark their changes as 'minor' when they genuinely are. Many editors don't want to be inundated with emails about petty changes, but equally get unsurprisingly irritated when other users mark big changes as 'minor', which they then miss. I hope you find this helpful. See also: Help:Email notification. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes I learned something new today! 331dot (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: LOL! That happens to me a lot here, too! That's the wonder of the Teahouse, isn't it? One related trick I have devised to avoid being inundated with email notifications of every edit made to a myriad of pages I'm not really not interested in watching over the long term is to make a watchlist backup (example). At intervals I then clean out all the short-term pages I've been monitoring (e.g. for vandalism etc) and then paste the backup list back in and start again with a 'clean' watchlist of only what I regard as my really important pages to keep an eye on. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The minor edit marking is also used for "Hide minor edits from the watchlist" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist and "Hide minor edits from recent changes" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rc, and it causes a bold m in the page history. I guess more users are interested in these applications than email notifications. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello - I would like to submit new articles about some hotels in the Riviera Maya, Mexico - I tried to write up an article using facts about the property, but it has been rejected for being too much like advertising for the hotel - can you give me any advice about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silven Creative Studios (talk • contribs) 00:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Silven Creative Studios: As you have just been advised on your talk page, your account has been 'soft-blocked' for contravening our username policy. Should you return to editing under a more appropriate, single-use name, you should read WP:YFA, and recognise that we are an encyclopaedia. We are not here to allow you or anyone else to churn out promotional bunkum (like Draft:KASA Hotel Parota Tulum) that these organisations or their staff members want to say about it. We care only about what independent, third party sources have written about that topic. If there aren't any Reliable sources (like newspapers, books, journals) that talk about it, we simply won't allow it here. Forget trip advisor - we are not interested what visitors personally write about something. All editors are obligated under Conflict of Interest and Paid editing policies to declare their connections with the subjects they are writing about/promoting. As you have found out, we take promotional editing very seriously in this encyclopaedia. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to check whether this author profile is notable or not.

https://www.amazon.com/Anshuman-Patro/e/B07D266GK3

@Aninnocentinfant: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In order to merit an article on Wikipedia, an author must be significantly written about in independent reliable sources and meet the notability guidelines written at WP:AUTHOR. If this author's Amazon profile is the only mention of him, he would not merit an article at this time. It doesn't matter if he is self-published or not in that respect. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aninnocentinfant: A quick Google search suggests there's insufficient coverage. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedians, I was wondering if anyone had some helpful advice on editing the article called Parental controls? I am working with Visual editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyReNew (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, EmilyReNew. It's a bit hard to answer your question without knowing a bit more about what you're trying to do, or what you're having difficulty with. --ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

For Parental controls what do you intend to do? David notMD (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@EmilyReNew: I'm not prepared to tell you what I think you ought to do to improve the article on Parental controls as I see you're a student who has presumably been set an editing assignment as part of a Wikipedia course - and it's fantastic to see you here. It really is. What we can do is point you to the online manual for using Visual Editor (See WP:VE). We can tell you that, unlike your college essays, we do not allow you to insert your own views or opinions into an encyclopaedia article. Your task is to help communicate the topic in hand to a broad audience, basing everything upon sources that you cite. You use your own form of words, you don't cut and paste, nor do you put a personal interpretation or synthesis on content (WP:OR). You ignore trivial websites, especially those that are user-edited (Like Wikipedia, in fact!), and only user properly written sources. Google Books and Google Scholar can help find academic studies and papers that you may cite. The Visual Editor has a "Cite" button which makes the task of adding references quite simple, but there are times when using the original 'source editor' is preferable. Do have a read of Help:Referencing for beginners. Might I turn your question around and suggest that you come back here with your ideas of what the article needs by way of improvement and discuss it here for us to give you feedback? Or make he edits and ask us to look over them. We're here to help, but not to do the work for you. I'll pop over and leave a welcome message full of helpful links that you might wish to utilise to get you going. How does that sound? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)  

I have created an article in my sandbox but I don't see a space to write the name of the article. Once I am ready, how do I publish an article live after having edited it in my sandbox space?. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed23mar (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ed23mar: Welcome to Wikipedia. I recommend you follow the steps at WP:YFA to create your article, and there is a wizard there to help you submit your draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that before you submit your draft for review you would need to include references to published reliable sources independent of the subject which discuss the subject in detail, see Wikipedia's definition of notability and also the advice regarding neologisms. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I own New Breed Magazine and have the rights to an image of multi platinum grammy winning producer Jared Lee Gosselin and rapper Lil Cory which was taken during an interview is entirely available on our magazine website. We own 100% of the image yet Wikimedia keeps having it removed. Why? Hot to prevent this from happening again in the future. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baynhamholdings (talk • contribs) 01:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Baynhamholdings. It looks like you uploaded the photo in question to Commons. Although Wikipedia and Commons are part of the Wikimedia Foundation family, they are technically separate and distinct projects which have their own respective policies and guidelines. This means that although we can provide some general information to you here at the Teahouse, you will ultimately need to resolve any issues with anything you upload to Commons on Commons itself. First some general things about Commons.

1. You can find out usually find out why a file uploaded to Commmons has been flagged for issues by looking at your Commons user talk page at c:User talk:Baynhamholdings. However, it appears that c:File:Jared Lee Gosselin and Lil Cory.jpg you're asking about at c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests was uploaded by another editor named c:User talk:Raptummag; so, you will find the relevant notification at c:User talk:Raptummag. This file was deleted because its licensing couldn't be verified. Commons needs to be able to verify that the original copyright holder of the photo has agreed to release the file under a license which satsifies c:Commons licensing. Lots of people claim they are copyright holders of files they upload when they actually aren't; so, Commons requires some sort of more formal verification whenever they are any dooubts of a file's licensing. You can find out more about this at c:Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. Most likely the easiest way to verify your copyright ownership will be to send a consent email to Wikimedia OTRS. If you want some more specific information about this, feel free to ask c:User:JuTa the administrator who deleted the file for help. One word of advice though if you do ask JuTa for help by posting on their user talk page, try not to post in all capital letters like you did in the undeletion request you made at Commons since it is considered to be the equivalent to shouting at someone over the Internet and isn't going to really make JuTa or other editors want to try and help you.
2. If you upload a file to Commons which ends up subsequently being deleted and you're not sure why, the pretty much worst thing you can do is simply re-upload the file again. Most likely it's going to end up being deleted for the same reasons which will just waste your time and Commons time; moreover, if you continuously do this type of thing, a Commons administrator may step in and block your account for continous violations of Commons policy. It's OK to make a mistake once, maybe even twice, but it's not OK to keep making the same mistake over and over again. Commons takes image licensing very seriously; so, it's better to ask for help first before re-uploading any deleted file(s). For reference, a file which has been deleted is not gone forever, but rather only hidden from public view and can be restored at a latter date once the issue which led to its deletion has been resolved.

Now some things about Wikipedia:

1. Your choice of username is a problem per Wikipedia:Username policy because usernames which may be seen as representing a particular company or organization, etc. are not allowed per WP:ORGNAME. Another editor has already posted something about this on your Wikipedia user talk page; so, you should consider changing your username to something else before you're account is soft blocked by an administrator.
2. You seem to be somehow connected to the person you're writing about in Draft:Lil Cory. If that's the case, you would be considered to have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest about anything written about him on Wikipedia and therefore are expected to comply with Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide when you edit. Moreover, anyone associated with you or who is making edits on behalf of you or Lil Cory is also going to be considered to have a conflict of interest and thus will also be expected to comply with the aforementioned conflict of interest guide.
3. If by chance you and Raptummag are the same person, please carefully read through Wikipedia:Username policy#Using multiple accounts. In principle, Wikipedia requires that editors use only one account when they edit, except in certain cases like those listed in WP:VALIDALT. Any use of multiple accounts like those listed in WP:ILLEGIT will likely be noticed and flagged for adminstrator review.

I hope you find the above information helpful. Please feel free to add any questions you might have below; however, please try and WP:SIGN your posts here at the Teahouse since it makes it easier for others to know who's posting and when they posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Writing how article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saudireporter (talk • contribs) 04:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Saudireporter: Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. To create a new article on English Wikipedia requires that topic to meet our Notability Criteria, and there are specific criteria for specific subjects such as Notable People, Notable Organisations, Notable Music and musicians etc. Please read Your First Article for the mechanism to follow to create a draft and to then have it reviewed by our volunteers. We advise all new users - especially if their main language is not English - to start by only making small changes to existing articles, learning how we operate and how we engage with one another, plus the need for Reliable Sources to support every factual statement that someone could be likely to challenge, and only then to consider creating a new page here. That route is the road to success, rather than starting eagerly and being disappointed when one fails. I wish you every success on your Wikipedia Adventure.

Please remember to sign every talk page post with four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I need some help regarding an article that I created in Hindi Wikipedia. I have raised this question in Hindi Wikipedia but no one helped me.I am an autoconfirmed user in Hindi Wikipedia still I can't move any page, in fact, the move option doesn't appear on any article. I have put DB-author in one article that I created once but no one has reviewed it once. What should I do now and why I am not able to move a page in Hindi Wikipedia even though I am an autoconfirmed user. I know it would be better to ask this in Hindi Wikipedia but no one helped me there. Please guide me, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by नेहा गुप्ता (talk • contribs) 07:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi नेहा गुप्ता. The Teahouse is really for asking questions related to editing English Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia has it's own separate policies and guidelines. While its true that many policies and guidelines are the same or quite similar for all the Wikipedias, there are also sometimes big differences; so, questions about Hindi Wikipedia have a better chance of being answered correctly by editors working on that project. I'm not sure if Hindi Wikipedia has its own version of the Teahouse, but it looks like you can ask questions in English at hi:विकिपीडिया:दूतावास. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@नेहा गुप्ता: See hi:विकिपीडिया:स्थानांतरण. In the Hindi Wikipedia you must be autopatrolled to move pages. In the English Wikipedia you only have to be autoconfirmed. I don't know Hindi but they don't appear to have an equivalent to {{db-author}}. Maybe you can use hi:साँचा:शीह-कारण. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I get a bot to archive my talk page? I've seen quite a few other editors have that on their talk pages, and I'm interested as to how it's done. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 11:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Help on archiving a talk page is available at Help:Archiving a talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ...more precisely, in the section Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Automated_archiving, for your use case. Do come back with any further questions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Images are a Wikipedia subject I've never understood. I always wondered how people managed to get images of things they didn't own, yet were still allowed to add them to Wikipedia or Wikimedia. I've just read the first few lines of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_images_with_Wiki_Markup/3 and it sounds like I should be allowed to add logos, covers, and posters for things like films, TV shows, film/TV companies etc. Is that the case? There's loads of articles for British films, TV shows and film/TV companies which don't have an image of the film/TV shows titles/logo/DVD cover/poster etc, or a film/TV companies logo, which I'd add if that was the case. Also if it proves impossible to find an image of a older TV show, would an image from a TV guide be acceptable? Danstarr69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ideally, Wikipedia should only use "free" images, that is, images compatible with its CC-BY-SA licensing that allows fairly generous reuse conditions. However, that is extremely hard in many cases and that is why there is an allowance for copyrighted images, provided its usage follow a strict list of criteria.

In the case of creative images such as logos, film stills, etc., which are 99.9%+ of the time under copyright, the relevant criteria from that list are:

#3a: for instance, a film poster is OK for the article about the film, but not for the article about its director

#3b: use low-resolution images in every case

#8: film stills are OK only if accompanied by critical commentary in the article

#10: carefully describe who has the copyright, where you took the image from, etc.

In the case of logos, we even have a dedicated information page: WP:LOGO. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about this page:

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

I am a product developer building FHIR services. I design software for FHIR services and an FHIR client. I write code. My code runs at real hospitals 24x7. I have worked with the traditional pre-FHIR HL7 standard too.

I read the FHIR page today interested to see how other people describe FHIR to a general audience. I found the paragraph beginning with "Implications for healthcare informatics" really awkward to the point of being inaccurate.

From the article: "Because FHIR is implemented on top of HL7 and the HTTPS (HTTP Secure) protocol, messages can be parsed by wire data analytics platforms for real-time data gathering."

FHIR is not "implemented on top of HL7". It is developed through the same HL7 organization that 'administers' the older traditional HL7 standard. FHIR is heavily influenced by the experience of developing and using HL7, but it is implemented in a very different way to get away from some of the challenges of traditional HL7 and CDA, two older standards developed by the HL7 organization. It makes many of the same categories of data available using technology and style that is more up to date and convenient web and mobile developers.

The inference is also wrong. HTTPS has very little to do with making FHIR easily parse-able, from a developer's perspective. It would be just as easy to parse without HTTPS. HTTPS makes it easy to retrieve. JSON and XML make it easy to parse. The fact that it's a content standard that uses on other recognized reference data and terminology standards makes it easier to interpret the meaning of FHIR messages.

I could make this more accurate, less misleading. But I thought, maybe editors are quoting some article. So I looked at the footnote. I was a link to a corporate web site.

Questions:

1. Is footnote 23 considered promotional on wikipedia? Does the community accept this sort of footnote?

2. If I want to try to edit the incorrect paragraph, is there some form of dialog with earlier authors or should I just make a change and see what happens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krakavec (talk • contribs) 05:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Krakavec. That is not a heavily edited article so I do not think that advance discussion is required. As long as your edits comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then just go ahead, be bold, and make your edits. Add nothing based on your personal experience. Instead, summarize published reliable sources. If you are reverted, be prepared to defend your edits on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

BE BOLD (it's a Wikipedia philosophy). Also, whenever you comment at Teahouse or on a Talk page, 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I am glad to be here. I received a message to come to teahouse. Pleased to meed the community. I am selecting random articles and trying to follow instructions to improve. Anything else I can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkman45 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Talkman45 and welcome to Teahouse. If you ever need help editing or contributing to this wonderful encyclopedia, come to the Teahouse. Have a read at WP:CONTRIBUTE for some ideas on how you can get started. Mstrojny (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, @Talkman45:! I like clicking "Random article" and seeing if I can find anything to improve too. Plus I discover really interesting content that way. If you haven't done The Wikipedia Adventure yet, try it -- it's a good tutorial on editing. WP:Typo_Team/moss lists lots of articles that have typos and misspellings that you can fix. And Community Portal has a "Help Out" section that has links for different types of needed improvements, to get you started. Schazjmd (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a ton (talk) and (talk). I did see the random article and did a few edits yesterday. But didn't know about WP:Typo_Team/moss. I will explore this. Thanks again for your prompt response and guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkman45 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC) --Talkman45 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi (talk) and (talk), I have been editing on the random articles section. Do I need to mention here or the various articles that I edited. Also, when I correct a cross-link or put a link, I just tick This is a minor edit. Do I need to write in detail of the edits I made? Thanks for your help.--Talkman45 (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

You should always include an edit summary, even for a minor edit. Very many (I suspect most experienced) Wiki editors will just add "wl" or "add wl" if all they've done is add a wikilink.

This is a message I have also written to Arjayay, but am not sure that I have pressed the correct buttons for him to receive it.

Dear Arjayay, I am responding to your message to me on 26 March at 16.03. The article I wrote about myself was a rewrite of a bio uploaded by Dr Alistair Sinclair some years ago, and present on your website for all this time. I simply slightly changed the short bio and then uploaded a much larger number of publications. Each publication (journal article, book chapter or book) was fully referenced as required. Each pubication is publicly available and verifiable. The only papers probably not verifiable are the conference papers listed at the end of my publications. So is the problem that it is I rather than someone else who has uploaded this information? Or is it that I did not follow the correct procedures? I hope you will see that everything I have written, apart possibly from the conference papers at the end, are verifiable. YOu said that I did not provide a verifiable source - I am not sure what this means as each publication is fully referenced. Thank you for your time, Miriam Green Miriam R Green (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Miriam R Green and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you did leave the message for Arjayay in the wrong place on their talkpage. I've moved it to the correct position. Second, you really shouldn't contribute on your own article, please see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Third, please see WP:NOTRESUME. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion, either by others or self-promotion. The prior version which had been written by Sinclair was edited down to conform to WP standards (and in my opinion, rightly so). So adding it back in would probably result in the same reaction even if it were a COI edit. Regardless, I'm sure Arjajay will respond either here or on their talkpage.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:The Lucky 7 Clan has no business being a template, but I can't find an appropriate speedy deletion category. Do I take it to MfD or is there a better way? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted this with a somewhat overelaborated explanation; will contact the creator. Lectonar (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a promotional post? I'm informing about the company where I work. Please let me know exactly what I am doing wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigo_Industries — Preceding unsigned comment added by ECohen1 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi ECohen1 and welcome to the Teahouse. Well, to answer your question, it reads like a promotional blurb about the company, you talk about the company's products and goods, and discuss them in a complimentary way. There are nuggets in there which could be used in an article, like where they are located (but using terms like "dedicated employees is a definite no-no), but most of the article reads like a promotional brochure. Second, you need to show how the company passes Wikipedia criteria, please see WP:GNG for general notability criteria, and since this is a company, also see WP:CORPDEPTH. Third, you have a conflict of interest, see WP:COI, and you really shouldn't work on an article about the company you work for.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

There are numerous messages on your user talk page, and you have ignored them. The page has been deleted a number of times in the past, including after WP:Articles for deletion/Vigo Industries, but you produced another unsourced page, including such pointless drivel as "Guided by its mission to enhance living by providing the most creative products and customer experiences, VIGO aims to provide the ideal every day." You were warned about the mandatory requirements for declaration of paid editing, but you have ignored the warning and failed to make the required declaration. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia until you have made the declaration. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@ECohen1: You were doing everything wrong! You were abusing Wikipedia for your employer's own ends, and were given final warnings about this on your user page which you have ignored. Nor did you make the mandatory declaration of your WP:PAID employment.

Whilst you clearly "welcome the challenge of delivering a specific message to a targeted audience and work in a methodical, detail-oriented manner" your copywriting corporate bull doesn't work here, and you have just been permanently blocked from editing. Because of your repeated attempts at promoting your employer and disregarding our policies, I have asked the deleting administrator of Vigo_Industries to 'salt' any future article on that topic. That means no article may ever be re-created under that name without prior approval of an administrator. I hope your employer appreciates your efforts. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I was wondering if there was a way for me to get a count of how many times a particular source is used is. I don't mean a particular article or paper. But if I was interested in how many time something from the journal Science has been cited here is there a place that's compiled? Thanks, I've been digging around via Google for a couple of days and have met dozens of dead ends.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, please ping me if you reply, I have not been logged in as much as I'd like to be lately. Life is busy at the moment.

Hello, Rap Chart Mike welcome to the Teahouse. What a great question! We had a similar one last year, and I remember pointing them to this Wikimedia blog post about the most popular individually cited articles. That linked to the raw data of scholarly citations used in their study (here) which is a 250Mb download and, I'm sure, would take quite a bit of analysis for you to answer your question. You can also download the entire Wikipedia database via links at Wikipedia:Database download. So how keen are you to know and to delve into it? I'm afraid we can't do that for you. If your question is driven by a genuine academic research interest, rather than just casual curiosity, I might suggest approaching one of the authors of that research for some assistance or collaboration.

Now, were the source journal you're interested in be an extremely obscurely-named one, it might be possible to do a simple text search for that name occurring in articles and simply count the number of returns, but I wouldn't fancy your chances with "Nature", for example. You might also find something of interest here, though maybe other editors here might have further suggestions they can offer you that I've not thought of. I can certainly find nothing of relevance to your question at Wikipedia:Statistics, which is my usual first port of call for such answers. Sorry I can't offer more suggestions, other than inviting you to set the challenge to the folks who inhabit Wikipedia:Reference desk, and who apparently live for this sort of challenge! Do come back and let me know how you get on. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the thorough answer. There are some useful resources to dig into here. It is driven by curiosity and academic interest for me but mostly because recreational math is actually fun for some of us. Cheers from the US. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rap Chart Mike: You're very welcome. I can get quite 'nerdy' over some datasets that intrigue me, too - mainly botanical ones. I think one of our admins (PrimeHunter) has a similar sort of joy in mathematics as yourself. Can I make a suggestion? Why not create a user subpage and record your progress on this 'project' as a form of report, with links to the datasources and method of analysis you eventually adopt, along with your results (successful or otherwise). I believe this could be of great interest to (some) in the community and maybe even WMF, and would allow others to assess your method, support or challenge conclusions and use your approach in their own analysis of citations or other content in Wikipedia data. You might even find WMF staff are willing to offer assistance. Although I've worked with relatively massive datasets, I've never worked with Wikipedia data, and I would be extremely interested to see how you progress. Please keep me informed on my talk page, if you will. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea. I'll look into that after the semester and will keep you apprised if I get something useful running. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rap Chart Mike: See meta:Research:Characterizing Wikipedia Citation Usage. Special:LinkSearch is sometimes used to count online sources. I do have an interest in recreational math but the only statistics I collect are related to prime numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

How can I create a wikipedia page for a published author? His name is James Campion and there already is a historical figure that has a page under that name, but I want to create a separate one for an author. How do I go about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacuna0518 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Read the advice at WP:Your first article, produce a draft, submit it for review through the AFC process, and a reviewer (if he approves your draft) will sort out the disambiguation. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Shiva is known as "The Destroyer of evils and devils" within the Trimurti, the Hindu trinity that includes Brahma and Vishnu.[1][13] In Shaivism tradition, Shiva is the supreme being who creates, protects and transforms the universe.[8][9][10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malyada devi (talk • contribs) 17:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you make this change of line Shiva is known as "The Destroyer of evils and devils" within the Trimurti instead of only The destroyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malyada devi (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Shiva is known as "The Destroyer of evils and devils" within the Trimurti, the Hindu trinity that includes Brahma and Vishnu.[1][13] In Shaivism tradition, Shiva is the supreme being who creates, protects and transforms the universe.[8][9][10]

Can you make this change of line Shiva is known as "The Destroyer of evils and devils" within the Trimurti instead of only The destroyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malyada devi (talk • contribs) 17:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposals for changes to Shiva should be made at Talk:Shiva, supported by references to published reliable sources to support the changes. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am interested to understand about templates. For example the Welcome templates that are posted on new user pages like the one posted to to my User page or to User's page in the post, New to Wikipedia. I have noticed there are many different variations. I wanted to create my own links page for helpful links that have been provided to me through other editors responding to my various questions, general reading, researching, etc... but I want it to be formatted and look nice. I wasn't sure if a copy paste and then modify is okay or not. Do editor's such as ColinFine create their own templates? LorriBrown (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, LorriBrown. No, I have never created a template. Certainly you may: almost all material in Wikipedia is licensed such that it may be used, and modified at will, as long as the source is attributed: see copying within Wikipedia. That applies to templates just like everything else. Some templates are very complicated, and require an understanding of the programming language WP:LUA; others are quite simple.

I think you are mainly talking about userboxes: you can use an existing one, or create a new one, at will. See UPDC for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine No, I wasn't asking about user boxes - although they are interesting. I guess my question was unclear. I thought if I could locate where the templates are - then I could figure out how to format information. I simply want to format the links I placed on my page in a organized and presentable manner. I started to place links on my user page but they don't appear as professional as I would like. Thank you for the links! LorriBrown (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: You only need to deploy a template if you are going to repeat content again and again somewhere. You certainly won't be doing that with your userpage I hope! I've just placed the text from User:Nick Moyes/sandbox/template on your page, using a technique called Substitution. (I use this template to welcome and encourage brand new editors who appear to be interested in improving articles about women.) Click the edit source tab to see how it, or other welcome messages, are constructed.

What I think you sound like you want is some tips to making your userpage content less, errm, well...Wikipedia-like? If so, go to Wikipedia:User page design center and take a look around - especially at the Hall of Fame. But my advice is that you think about spending less or your - and our - time working on non-mainspace content and start editing some genuine articles. That's the best way to learn editing techniques. I realised you've been focused wholly up to now on creating a page about a family member or friend, but of the 1,440 edits you've made so far, only 8 have been to Wikipedia articles. Don't take this the wrong way, but where I live the phrase "You need to get out more" seems very apposite. Best wishes for a long and productive Wikipedia career. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Nick Moyes! I understand that it may not have appeared like much editing (or effort) but actually it took a fair amount of researching (couple of days to locate references) and organizing citations (in my user space) to create the three or four main edits. I was initially nervous to edit on this project (especially since it looked fragile with only one reference). With a little encouragement I went ahead and tackled it. I must say though there seems to be a whole myriad of things not to do and unfortunately I seem to be ringing all the bells and whistles. Had I realized that working on a draft with a too many edits would attract a critical eye (or had I paid more attention to the preview option) I would have consolidated my edits. It seems like many little edits are frowned upon. I also understand article creation is a not encouraged for new editors. Having said all that, I do very much appreciate you reply, the suggestions and the template post! Thanks again. You folks in the Teahouse are all awesome.LorriBrown (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear ColinFine and Nick Moyes, I reread this conversation several times and have been trying to process all the helpful content that was provided. In my haste to defend my editing style, I failed to click one link in particular that looks to be a very informative tool. The more I read through the Q & A's here in the Teahouse, the more admiration I have for the wealth of knowledge participants must have in order to prepare these responses! Thanks again!LorriBrown (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your acknowledgment, LorriBrown, and your willingness to learn. It is a big beast indeed! Please don't take away from Nick's reply that you should "consolidate your edits" to a draft. There is little advantage to consolidating changes into a small number of edits, and sometimes a disadvantage (if somebody has reason to roll something back, they'll roll the whole lot back). I don't entirely agree with Nick about edits outside mainspace: I do agree with him about not spending too much time on user pages, but I think writing drafts is nearly as useful as writing mainspace articles (as long as the draft has a hope of being accepted into mainspace. Having said that, creating new articles is difficult (as you've discovered) and it is worth spending some time improving mainspace articles early on in one's editing career, to learn the ropes on something not quite so hard. --ColinFine (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

a little timeline:

1994 Synch_(comics)

1995 NSYNC

present Sync

and for comparison purposes:

17th C. Facial_tissue

1924 Kleenex

the striking difference here is that the Facial_tissue page is not titled Kleenex

(with an explanation that Kleenex and facial tissue are both spellings for facial tissue.)

with this in mind, does it make sense for the page for Synchronise to be spelled Sync?

there is a very clear demarcation on the page itself between product names using sync and non-products using synch.

(and any instance at all of the sync variation occurring after 1995. coincidence?)

((yes, unix predates 1995, but ls/cd/mv or even mkdir/rmdir are not words in common use, yet))

while the intent of Wikipedia is to document human knowledge, that sync has become an egg-corn for synch would be better documented on the actual page for egg-corns, or a page about mechanisms behind the growth and change of language in general, rather than being the title for the commonly misspelled word.

Longpinkytoes (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Longpinkytoes. I don't quite follow what you are calling for (and in any case, I think your question belongs on the talk pages of one of the articles in question better than here), but I will point out that Wikipedia (unlike biology) doesn't care about chronological priority in naming articles, and nor does it make judgments about what is or isn't a misspelling or an eggcorn. WP:TITLE says that we use the word "as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". --ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, me again! I posted here yesterday, but about something very different. Anyways, I have been looking at the userpages of several editors and noticed that their userboxes are aligned to the right side of the screen. I have dug around but can't seem to find how to do this. Could you let me know how this is done or if there is a page that contains that information, send me a link? Thanks! --LiamUJ (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

If you like the way it is done on the userpage of a particular editor, you can look at their page and see how it is done. One option is to use {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I appreciate it! --LiamUJ (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Another minor point worth bearing in mind is that the transclusion process defaults to Template namespace if you don't specify a namespace. You can omit the Template: prefix, as you already have done for a couple of the userboxes on your user page. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear friends, I'd like to publish an article about an index formula, but i happen to be the creator/inventor of this formula. I have read the guidelines and believe the article has merit and references. The question is: Can I write the article myself making sure it's neutral and objective and declaring that I wrote it, or should I ask someone else to write about it. If so, How can I find someone to write about it. Anybody in this blog interested?. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed23mar (talk • contribs) 20:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ed23mar and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote or publicise your new formula (outlined in User:Ed23mar/sandbox) unless the world has genuinely taken notice of it and written about it in some depth and detail. From your sandbox, it doesn't appear to have achieved that yet, so is simply WP:TOOSOON. Any Conflict of Interest you might have in the matter is made irrelevant by reason of its non-notability. Therefore, at this time it would not be possible for you to write about it in this encyclopaedia of 'Notable Things'. Sorry to disappoint you, but rather than be put off, perhaps you might consider using your skills and experience by editing and improving other articles that already exist here, but which are in need of further expert attention, or just a little love and care? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I created a draft entry, but I can't seem to submit it for review. I see no button or other mechanism to do it. I had clicked on "publish" near the bottom of the page, which I thought meant it had been submitted, but apparently not. Would welcome help. Erbjitto (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Erbjitto, to submit a draft for review, simply add the coding {{subst:submit}} to the top of it. This will add a notice that the page is pending review and will also add it to a category of drafts awaiting review; an experienced editor should eventually come along and either accept it or decline it. Wikipedia:Articles for creation explains more details about this process. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 15:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Erbjitto, The page needed an AfC banner, witch I have added. I also added a template for the Irish poet hatnote. To submit your draft, hit the big blue "Submit" button. However, the page needs some more work, and

a picture at least. Good luck WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hang on, WelpThatWorked. A picture is desirable, sure, but not a requirement, and certainly not a requirement for a draft to be accepted. Many article don't have pictures just because nobody has found a suitably licensed one. --ColinFine (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are some sources

https://worldenewspaper.com/kashmir-observer/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Kashmir-Observer

https://scroll.in/author/12581

https://www.epaper-hub.com/india/kashmir-observer.aspx

https://www.greaterkashmir.com/article/news.aspx?story_id=273091&catid=2&mid=53&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

https://www.exchange4media.com/industry-briefing-news/kashmir-observer-to-launch-business-supplement-47494.html

https://scroll.in/article/853565/view-from-kashmir-observer-what-adnan-samis-concert-says-about-the-situation-in-kashmir

https://www.thequint.com/news/india/kashmir-newspapers-media-dailies-unrest-financial-losses-advertisement-revenue-lost-digitisation-digital-online — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.221.202.95 (talk • contribs) 2019-03-27T23:31:22 (UTC)

Courtesy link: this relates to WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 928#Kashmir Observer. --ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi all , Today I´ve noticed that some KG had their Wikipedia widget translated from English to Italian (Tradotto dall´Inglese-...Wikipedia widget.. ) Am I right ? Do you know if this toll will be soon available also for the Italian language ? Many thanks--Dial113 (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dial113, welcome to the Teahouse. Are you referring to the Google Knowledge Graph shown to the right of some Google searches? I set my Google language to Italian for testing and saw the Google Knowledge Graph in Italian but with no link to Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia has no control over the feature. In English it's often only a plain text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" which was copied from Wikipedia by Google while data fields have unknown sources. Sometimes nothing is from Wikipedia. See Template:HD/GKG for a stock answer to reports of errors. I don't know what Google is planning or whether it's new to display a Knowledge Graph in Italian. The Italian and English Wikipedia has the same license for reuse of content. It applies to Google and everybody else. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi@PrimeHunter. Thank you for your answer . Yes I am referring to the Knowledge Graph. So basically it is up to google to develop the tool? I mean it´s already present in French , German , Spanish and Portuguese ( you can try with pianist Gloria Campaner by changing the languages on google settings and you´ll see that in Italian there is no translation).I will ask Google then. Many thanks --Dial113 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dial113: I don't know whether Google uses translation or finds a source in the right language. I have no knowledge of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation contributing to the tool but I'm a volunteer editor and don't work for the Wikimedia Foundation. Knowledge Graph#Declining Wikipedia article readerships cites a 2014 source [1] which quotes a Wikimedia spokesperson: "We also have a continuing dialog with staff from Google working on the Knowledge Panel."PrimeHunter (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

While surfing Special:Random, I found an extremely technical article so I checked out its Talk page to see if I could understand anything there. Oddly enough, the article's talk page was full of templates from editors to User:Tryphongeorgiou.

Best I can tell, at one point, @Tryphongeorgiou: was working on a draft on their user page, and when it was moved to mainspace, it left redirects on the actual user page and talk page. I left Tryphongeorgiou a message on the article talk page, but they haven't been active since last year. In the meantime, the article has personal messages on its talk page.

I could remove the redirects but I hesitate to mess with Tryphongeorgiou's user space, and I don't know how to get the messages and history that are now on the article talk page back to Tryphongeorgiou's talk page. I don't know what the correct board is to ask for help with that task. Ideas? Schazjmd (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The editor who moved the page User:Frayae was blocked as a sock. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Tryphongeorgiou submitted User:Tryphongeorgiou for review and moved it to Draft:Tryphongeorgiou. Frayae moved it from there to Separation Principle in Stochastic Control. Vycl1994 then moved it to the current title Separation principle in stochastic control. The talk page was included in all the moves. I will clean it up. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Now fixed. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Schazjmd (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Our attempts by us and others to have Eclipse Ball listed on Wikipedia have all been denied. Please help us to get this listing through or steer us in the right direction.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclipse ball (talk • contribs)

@Eclipse ball: The only thing I can see is your posting of this text at our Village Pump. It was immediately deleted as being wholly inappropriate to that discussion forum on how Wikipedia is operated. You are clearly connected with whatever it is that you were trying to write about, so please read WP:COI and be aware that usernames suggesting multiple editors have access to it are not permitted. Please read Wikipedia:Your First Article and please use Articles for Creation to prepare drafts for submission. Connected editors should not be writing about their own organisations or groups, however. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! So, after I’ve done ten edits (and am presumably auto-confirmed) can I write a new article directly in the main space without starting it as a draft? Or, can I write a draft and then move it to the main space myself? Or does it have to get in line to be reviewed, which seems to take several months? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobeyd (talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lobeyd: Hello. Welcome to the Teahouse. Nope, you've not yet reached the minimum requirement of 10 edits and four days here to be autoconfirmed. After that, if you really feel competent enough and confident enough of the topic meeting our notability guidelines, we won't stop you. But be aware that anything you put straight into the encyclopaedia risks being immediately deleted if it fails to meet our minimum standards. I advise you to go via Articles for Creation. There is no deadline here. If it's well written, not full of promotional waffle about some company or minor celebrity/band etc, then it stands a good chance of being reviewed much more quickly - sometimes within minutes. Please visit these shortcut links to learn more about how we work here: WP:YFA; WP:TWA and WP:REFBEGIN - three really helpful page of guidance. I'll leave a shed load more links for you on your user page by means of one of our welcome messages to new users. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. There is this user called Eik Correl. I want to say something on the talk page. How do I do it? The reason i want to message him is that he changed the articel tanki online, which i edited. He said that wikis arent good fro inforamtion. But the wiki for tanki online is made by the developers. Denkiden (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Denkiden. Go to User talk:Eik Corell, click "New section", add a header under "Subject/headline", and write your message in the box below that, signing your message with --~~~~. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Help:Talk pages may be useful. I hope this helps! Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 15:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

What the developers say about the game they developed is not considered an independent source, and thus does not qualify as a reference except for very basic facts. David notMD (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If you go to my user page, theres a section about what i do here. I want to raise awareness of internet memes. Is that Ok? Denkiden (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Denkiden, in a nutshell, no. Wikipedia is not here to raise awareness of anything, be it memes or the best place to get a haircut. Instead, what an encyclopedia does is summarize information on notable subjects paraphrased from reliable sources in a neutral manner. John from Idegon (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Denkiden, if your goal is to raise awareness about memes, I would get to work making sure that existing articles about memes are top notch. Don't write about memes that aren't notable, seek out articles in reliable sources (if you can find any, academic sources would be particularly good) and then write articles that are easy to read and well-sourced. You can find many articles about memes at the Category:Internet memes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

There are mistakes in the article about Azerbaijani language. I edit it by deleting the "Azerbaijani Turkish" part with providing explanation: "Azerbaijani language is not an accent of Turkish to be called 'Azerbaijani Turkish'. Just like Turkmen language isn't called Turkmen Turkish, or Kazakh isn't called Kazakh Turkish, etc. It has Turkic roots, it's NOT Turkish." But changes get always reversed by user Ogress. Care to explain why? I need valid arguments. Encyclopædia Iranica is not a valid source when it comes to Azerbaijani language.

I'm not personally an expert on this subject, but other editors seem to hold that the Encyclopaedia Iranica is RS. Now, reliability is context dependent, it's not impossible that the source isn't reliable for Azeri languages. But in order to conclude that we need to see reliable sources that establish that. If you can find better sources than the Encyclopaedia Iranica, you can argue for your changes to Azerbaijani language. Otherwise, don't remove content that's backed by a source without a discussion first. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

How can find the status of my article submission made March 25 @ 05:18? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul LaValla (talk • contribs) 04:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Paul LaValla: Your draft is at Draft:Takashi Inoue and it was not submitted it for review. I have done that for you now. You can continue improving it in the meantime or do other editing work – Ammarpad (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Since I've heard Wikimedia is a non profit organization, what can I do to help ensure the foundation is financially secure in order to keep Wikipedia online and thriving? Stephengonzalez100 (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Stephengonzalez100: To donate to Wikimedia see https://donate.wikimedia.org/. To learn more about the organization see https://wikimediafoundation.org. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)