Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 914

Archive 910

←

Archive 912

Archive 913

Archive 914

Archive 915

Archive 916

→

Archive 920

Notability question

Amit Chhetri is a bodybuilder who won a medal at 2015 World Police and Fire Games. Some news covered it. There is no criteria listed at WP:NATHLETE for bodybuilders. I don't know bodybuilding considered as a sports or not. Is that 2015 Games notable? He has won some national level male beauty pageant. I have doubts regarding notability so I am asking. Is he notable? Is he a case of WP:1E?.-Nizil (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Nizil Shah. I would say that the Times of India reference is probably a good one; but it's not clear to me whether it all comes from Seth, or whether the reporter has investigated Chhetri independently. If it is all from Seth, the article might not be classed as independent. Either way, it is not enough on its own. I can't look at the indiatimes/sports references, as they are barred in Europe, but if they are of similar coverage of Chhetri, and are independent, that will probably be enough. The Fairfax reference is a simple listing, and does not contribute to notability. Note that whether the games are notable or not has no bearing on Chhetri's notability: they would have to be "a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" (WP:NATHLETE) for participation to be relevant on its own. (I'm not making any statement about whether they do or don't meet that description, just saying that that is the relevant criterion, not their notability). --ColinFine (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@ColinFine:, thank you for the comment. The indiatimes/sport ref has a list of 9 bodybuilders and says following about Amit Chhetri, nothing else:He is a constable in Uttarakhand police. He brought glory to the country [India] by winning gold in the Fairfax World Police and Fire Games 2015 in Virginia. He aced the competition which comprised more than 90,000 participants. Is World Police and Fire Games a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level? I do not know much about it. The article says that the Games are organised by WPFG Federation, an arm of the California Police Athletic Federation (CPAF), an American non-profit organization. Is bodybuilding a sport? For me, the notability of this person is hard to establish because of the unclear information and little knowledge of the subject. Is this person notable? Regards,-Nizil (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Deleted

I want toadd article but all the time deletes..why — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arman Aryamehr (talk • contribs) 10:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Arman Aryameh: Welcome to the Teahouse. What article are you referring to? I see no deleted articles in your edit history at all - only Draft:Seyed hasan aghamiri, which you have submitted, but which has not yet been reviewed by one of our volunteer team. You do need to be patient, though I fear your article will not be accepted as it stands. I see no evidence that this person meets our Notability criteria which requires you to demonstrate independent references which have talked in detail about this person. If you cannot do that, there will never be an article about this person. English Wikipedia has different acceptance criteria than other language versions, so what is accepted on one version may not be aceptable on another. Also: one of the two references you added does not work at all at present (see here). I am sorry this is probably not what you want to hear, though an article reviewer will also leave comments on the draft article if/when it is rejected. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: Shortly after posting my reply, the draft article referred to above was rejected at 'Articles for Creation' on the grounds of lack of notability. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Question on use of the authority control template

I have been operating on the understanding that Template:Authority control is for use on articles about people. That seems to be what Wikipedia:Authority control discusses as well. However, I recently came across the template on this article about a geographic location. My first inclination was to remove it. However, then I saw that there is valid VIAF data on geographic locations as well. That makes the template potentially useful on that page. Therefore, I left the template for now. Is that correct? Are geographic locations valid articles for the authority control template? Or is the proper use limited to just articles about people? Desertborn (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems my question is difficult. Adding this note so the bot doesn't archive the question yet.Desertborn (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Desertborn: It's not only used on BLPs, I've seen it for bands and albums, where {{Authority control}} pulls the MusicBrainz GUID from WikiData. If the template has an effect, such as the VIAF in your example, it makes sense to have the info on WikiData for all WikiMedia projects (not only enwiki), it simplifies the maintenance, and helps to figure out what's wrong if another Lenterode exists. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes sense. Desertborn (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Who decides on the validity of an entry

Hi

When someone takes the time to add something that's missing (a company with £130,000,000 turnover based in many countries) surely this is relevant. They employ about 1000 people and have won awards and been reported in the press. All of the criteria for addition are there including references.

I disagree with the editor who dismissed it - what next?

Please help!

Thanks

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdriscoll (talk • contribs) 13:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Pdriscoll. Welcome to the Teahouse, but please be more specific when you ask a question in future; none of us are mind readers. Do you mean why was this edit of yours reverted from a 'disambiguation page'? Or why was Draft:Third Bridge rejected as not meeting out notability criteria for organisations and companies?

1. In the first case you inserted a non-notable company into Third Bridge, which is only there to help people find existing pages about notable topics here on Wikipedia. You should always wait until the page exists on Wikipedia before adding anything to a 'Disambiguation' page. It is not there to be a directory of every single thing in this world called Third Bridge!
2. And you already have the answer to the second possible question on the rejection by an experienced reviewer of the draft page. We don't care if a company has a large turnover - it isn't relevant. Instead, we base 'notability' on whether other independent reliable sources have 'taken note' of it by writing in depth about it. We are not here to promote non-notable companies, though I see someone with the similar name as you appears to work for Third Bridge and perhaps they do think that's why we volunteer out time here. Whilst that may well be coincidence of course, if it isn't, you are obligated by our policies to declare any Conflict of Interest and Paid editing before you continue to attempt any further editing here. Nor should editors try to create articles about organisations they work for. If it's notable, someone else will undoubtedly feel motivated to write about it here. Please follow the links beginning WP: which act as shortcuts to essential pages you need to read, and give instructions how one should declare COI or PAID work.

Finally, the very short answer to your question is that you are entitled to contact any editor on their talk page to discuss any legitimate concerns you may have. In both of these instances I feel that will not be fruitful; improving the draft article with better sources will. Many thanks for asking your question here. Please sign all future talk page posts with four tildes (like this: ~~~~). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

data management system for research project

Dear Wikipedia team, We are about to start recording hundreds of stories that we need to compile to eventually create a fascinating and an important series of books. Gathering, organizing and connecting all the relevant information is quite a complicated research project. Hence, we're looking for the most suitable IT solution for the information data management (filing system, data tagging, find queries, etc.).

We would be so grateful for connecting us with one of your contributors that you consider an expert on such a subject? Any hints and/or recommendations are more than welcome. Great thanks in advance.

Best, Emilia Szymanska — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.161.14 (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Emilia. Whilst this sounds like an exciting project, Wikipedia is not the place to ask for help of that nature. We are unable to advise you, sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Citing wikisource

Wikisource that I cited in one of article is from wikisource in other language that not availabe in wikisource english. What should i do to make pelople know that wikisource is in other language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not debil (talk • contribs) 12:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Not debil. You can link to a foreign-language Wikisource page thus: [[:wikisource:de:Der Doppelgänger (Levin Schücking)|Der Doppelgänger]] displays as Der Doppelgänger. (I'm not sure whether you need the colon at the start, but it does no harm). See H:IW for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

If I see that someone has reverted vandalism, but not added a warning to the vandal's talk page, should I add one? --Canti60 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Canti60 welcome to the Teahouse. Yes you may. So long as I'm sure it is vandalism, I wait a few minutes to see if the reverting editor does leave an appropriate level warning, meanwhile checking the past contributions of the alleged vandal, and any previous warnings they've received. Then I'll add a warning template - it really doesn't have to be the reverter who leaves it. I use Twinkle to offer me the right level and type of notice to leave, and you can enable this through your Preference settings. If in doubt, leave one out; but if you're sure, it's the first step to the door! If it looks like the reverting editor regularly reverts vandalism but never leaves a warning notice, you can even politely nudge them to ensure that they do. There's even a template for that, too! Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Where can I find the template? Thanks.

--Canti60 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Canti60: Postscript: I see you've just quite rightly left this templated notice for an editor, but there was no signature included. I think it's essential that you identify who you are, lest the other person wants to come back and take issue with your warning. We can't expect newcomers to understand how to find out who has left anonymous notices for them. I'm not familiar with the PHP7 tag on your own edits to know how you're making these edits.

You can see all of these templates at WP:WARN. To add them automatically, have a read of Wikipedia:Twinkle, and to enable it, go to your own personal Preferences settings. In the 'Gadgets' Tab there's a tickbox to activate Twinkle, about ten lines down. Save changes and refresh your page, and when you next go to a User's talk page you should now find just left of the Wikipedia Search box a dropdown menu with the letters TW (for Twinkle). Go to 'Warn' and you have a small box for selecting the type and level of warning, a box to add the page name concerned, and another should you wish to leave a specific message. Feel free to go to my own Talk page and leave me a series of warnings as a test. (I won't take it personally - though others might if they didn't know!) It's worth you investigating the different types available. Most common ones are Vandalism, Section blanking and Edit tests, but there are numerous others, such as inserting uncited content, or single issue notices to encourage the other editor to leave warning notices. BTW: There's no need to sign your name on a new line - doing it at the end of the last sentence is the right way. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Changes not showing up in the browser

Hello, I have made some changes and they show up in edit mode, but not in read mode.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WebSolEditor (talk • contribs)

Greetings and welcome to the Teahouse. BTW, it's a good idea to sign your posts, not just here but in any comment you make on any talk page. In the editor look for a little squigle icon between the Italic icon and the Link icon. Place your cursor at the end of your comment and tap that icon once and it will generate a signature for you. That's for the original editor, there is an easy way to do that in the Visual Editor as well but I'm not sure how because I don't use it. As for your question, it could be a number of things. First, note that there are several buttons below where you are editing. If you hit "Show Preview" it will show you what the edit will look like but it won't actually commit the change. Make sure you press the "Publish Changes" button. Also, it coud just be that you need to refresh your page. That's happened to me in the past, I make a change and then I go to another tab with the article I was editing and I get confused because it still shows the old version of the article. If you can point us to the specific article we could probably give you better feedback because we can look at the change history of that article. Hope that helps. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @WebSolEditor: as MadScientistX11 forgot to include OP name in above reply to ensure they got a notification alert. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Nick. I have been using the Publish Changes button. Seems like an issue with the server. WebSolEditor (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@WebSolEditor: All your recent article edits are to Mark Pigott so I assume this is the page but you have edited it 32 times in the last five hours so you also have to say which text is missing in read mode. The "View history" tab shows that most of your changes have been reverted. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. One of the admins rolled back all my changes. I don't understand why. I was correcting some typos, updating numbers and adding a few more facts. WebSolEditor (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• @WebSolEditor: First: I see on your user page that you have disclosed a relationship with PACCAR. From that information, you fall under the paid-editing guideline, even though it might not be in your job description (if someone at your job asks you to do it, it is part of your job). As such, you have to disclose it (I believe the current notice is sufficient, if a bit obscure) and are extremely discourage to make direct edits, but use edit requests instead.

The reason is that no matter how hard you try it is difficult to stay within the lines. For instance, the "Quote" section you added is a dubious addition: I am not sure whether guidelines permit it, but certainly few "company X" articles carry a quote by X's CEO saying X is the best; but for a blatant example, the sentence PACCAR has provided many educational grants and donations gives pretty much zero information (see WP:PEACOCK). (To be honest, the article was not (and is not) in a great shape either before your edits.) Notice that a fact being true is not sufficient to be included (for instance, we should not include a comprehensive list of minor awards).

Also, for easier communication with other editors, please indent your posts (see Help:Talk_pages#Indentation). I just fixed the indentation of this thread.

Finally, a pedantic note: "rolled back" refers to a very specific process in Wikipedia which was not used here by Fayenatic london. The correct term is "revert" (or "undo"). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Article reviews

A nice cuppa - you deserve it!

Hello, there. Can someone please give me some pointers towards having an article reviewed, including the type of review I should consider? I've done quite a bit of work on Bury F.C. since I took up membership, given that I support the club and the article was pretty nondescript before I started trying to improve it. It's now reached a point where I'd ideally like another pair of eyes to see it and give me some constructive feedback. I realise there are good and featured article review processes for articles which have been well developed but I'm not sure if this article is ready for a good article review yet, certainly not for featured.

Any and all advice you can give will be much appreciated. Thanks very much and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, No Great Shaker. After all that hard work] you deserve a cuppa! You're probably used to watching your team in the pouring rain every Saturday, so this one seemed appropriate! Now, how far do you want to go?

Do you simply want a reassessment of its quality (probable a C-class at a very quick glance, maybe a B - but these are always very simple and very subjective indications, nothing more). But do you want hints for improving it further? If so, then WP:PEERREVIEW is the place to go. There, editors will go over it with a fine-toothed comb and offer some basic and some nit-picky tips from our Manual of Style to enhance it further. Having gone through Peer Review you could then go for Good Article Review - a more formalised critique or style, content, referencing and coverage, where distinction between the use of em-dashes and en-dashes may turn you prematurely grey! But it's a brilliant way to learn how to get the very best out of an article . After recovering from that process you could even nominate it for a Featured Article review - the very highest assessment of content and coverage that we award to very few of the 5million+ articles here. Forgive me if I don't personally spend time going through it here and now (and football's really not by cup of tea) - but I'm sure there may be some here who would love to offer you some positive criticism to assist you further. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Ha! I always manage to get well back into the stand each Saturday, Nick, and stay dry. Can still be cold, though. I went to a semi-final there last night and we got clobbered three-nil. Oh, well.

I think the peer review is a great idea for someone like me. I've been reading the good article criteria and they look a bit daunting. The article might not be a million miles away from being a credible candidate but I don't want to waste anyone's time as there is a large backlog. What I really need to know now is if I'm complying with site standards like, as you say, the MOS which I've seen mentioned many times elsewhere. I've tried to verify everything but I'm not entirely sure if all the online sources will pass muster as there are very few book sources available.

Anyway, I'll head for the peer review page and see what develops. Thank you very much for your help, Nick. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You're very welcome, No Great Shaker. Having just read the lead about your team thrashing my local team (The Rams) in 1903, I might now have to put the page up for a deletion discussion instead! But I am glad you think Peer review is the best way to go to start off with, and I see David notMD has just re-assessed the upgraded article as B-class. Two things I'd say, having done a quick skim through, is whether "the club have been members of the.. " ought to be changed to "the club has been members..." because a club is a singular thing, whilst its members would be referred to in the plural. Secondly, I don't like your section headings - they sound very nice as approachable chapter headings in a book, or a museum label, but they don't read as encyclopaedia, and I think should be more formal in tone. Yours, somewhat sulkily, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know you are from Derby, Nick. Never mind – ancient history that will never be repeated. Yes, I think the headings need to be more objective and I'll see how other football articles handle them because the sort of topics they cover should be similar. In addition, Kosack has made some good suggestions on the peer review page and I'll complete those. I think, after the changes are done, I'll give it a bit more thought and then place it in the good article list to see how it goes there. Thanks again for all your help. Much appreciated. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Review of draft

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:SS_Mundra Review my draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhikhurathee (talk • contribs) 13:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

As the brown box on the draft says, the draft is awaiting review, and because of the number of drafts similarly awaiting review this might take up to 7 weeks. You don't need to ask here for it to be reviewed. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I took a quick look and it appears the article will be rejected for insufficient sourcing. See WP:GNG. I think you will need at least 6 more sources of biographical info, including 1-2 in-depth profile pieces, to demonstrate notability. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

OP now blocked as a sock. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Restoring G5 speedy

Akash Banerjee, an article was recently deleted because of WP:G5. Now based on my comment here, how can I restore the page? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard: See WP:REFUND, or leave a request on the deleting admin's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard: My advice, which you are of course free to ignore, is that it would be a waste of your time and that of other volunteer editors. Mere mentions of a subject does not make them notable - the person clearly isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and the only thing you'd accomplish is helping the paid shills (and the article would be nominated for deletion pretty much immediately). --bonadea contributions talk 17:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I would like to know why you think it's not that notable. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Because there is no significant coverage in multiple independent sources of him. He seems to have a rather efficient publicity machine and there's a bunch of trivial mentions of his name as well as a couple of interviews (which are considered primary sources), but he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Again, his people have been spamming Wikipedia with this article for months. Quite a few uninvolved editors have looked into this, so it's certainly not something that "I think". But again, this is just my advice. --bonadea contributions talk 18:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I looked at your five "here" links, and No, No, No, No, No. All trivial mentions or interviews. AB may become notable if career progresses, but not yet. David notMD (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Referencing Article in a Book

I have a couple questions about references. I'm going to create two separate posts. Here's the first one: I want to reference an article in a book of different articles. Specifically the article is Formal Properties of Grammars by Noam Chomsky and the book is Handbook of Mathematical Psychology Vol. 2 edited by Luce et. al. I tried the book template and looked at the extra fields but I only see one field for a Title where as I need two fields: the title of the article itself and the title of the book. Is there a template or easy way to do this? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: Since you are saying that the article is from a book of different articles, {{Cite encyclopedia}} might work well here; you can specify the title as Formal Properties of Grammars and the encyclopedia as Handbook of Mathematical Psychology. Happy editing! ComplexRational (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: The usual way to do what you want is shown at Template:Cite book#Examples under "Citing a chapter in a book with different authors for different chapters and an editor". Deor (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking for Instructions

I'm a new user who is curious enough to explore Wikipedia and try to make my own edits. However, I'm not exactly sure where to find a "tutorial for Wikipedia". Do you have any suggestions to some pages I should explore first to start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouGottaChill (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure is probably what you are looking for ^{[Username Needed]} 15:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Or, if you prefer a less interactive way of learning, try: Wikipedia:Tutorial. I will pop by your Talk page in a moment and leave a welcome message with a load of useful links for you to get you started. You might want to say a few words about your interests in editing Wikipedia by adding them to your own userpage, which you've not yet created. Pop back here anytime you're stuck, YouGottaChill, and good luck at the start of your own Wikipedia adventure! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your visit to the Teahouse. I like your enthusiasm and I am looking forward to see your contributions. I sometimes tell new editors that Wikipedia has a manual-That is, type WP:and then any topic on which you want more information. WP:Colors, WP: References as an example. I was told that there are more WP pages than articles. Sounds true. Just remember you can't break Wikipedia and be bold. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 23:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Florence Akins

Hi! I happend to find the article about Florence Akins, and saw the category centenarians. But she lived 1918-2012, and did not became 100 years old. I take away the cat, correct me if it is a mistake. // --Zquid (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now I have to correct myself. It is time to sleep, I think... // --Zquid (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries Zquid. Had it been a genuine error in the article, the first thing to do would have been to check the article references to see if you would have been justified to remove the inappropriate categories. You find these at the very bottom of the article. But all's good. Sleep well! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zquid: I don't see any edits by you to that article. Did you not save your changes? RudolfRed (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: No edit was necessary; the vital dates were actually 1906–2012.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Minor Edits

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and accidentally marked several changes as "minor edits" when they were not, in fact, minor. Is there any way I can go back and change the edit status? Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Literal Monkey (talk • contribs) 00:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No, you can't change it. Just be more careful next time. RudolfRed (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Literal Monkey. As RudolfRed points out, you can't go back and remove the edit the "m" from the page's history; you can, however, make a dummy edit as explained in WP:MINOR#Things to remember if you want to really clarify things. This can sometimes be a good thing to do if you feel the change might be controversial for some reason or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

new article

how can an article be published directly without review process? is it user dependent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.72.165 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's some info to review. Wikipedia:Your first article But keep in mind that creating a good article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. I recommend you first get experience making uncontroversial edits to articles about the topics that interest you. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The formal review process is called Articles for Creation. It is helpful for inexperienced new editors and mandatory for paid editors. But it is entirely optional for registered, autoconfirmed editors. Any autoconfirmed editor can move a draft to the main space of the encyclopedia without any advance review. However, new page patrollers may nominate that article for deletion within minutes if it does not comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you are not thoroughly familiar with those policies and guidelines, study them first and use AfC. If you understand them thoroughly, feel free to move your articles directly into the encyclopedia, but be aware that other editors may disagree with your move. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Tony Gonzalez's height listing

Hi, I just wanted to report that Tony Gonzalez's height isn't listed accurately. According to this site, which collects all of the NFL Combine measurements for players, Gonzalez is listed at 76.10 inches which is 6 feet 4.10 inches tall http://nflcombineresults.com/playerpage.php?f=Tony&l=Gonzalez&i=22935. That's not even a 1/4 inch over 6 feet 4. Also, IMDB lists him at 6' 4" as well https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2279257/. I've tried changing his height to 6' 4" but it's reverted back to 6' 5". Why is that even though I have evidence that is more than adequate.

Thanks,

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian656787 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ian656787: It appears from the edit summaries at Tony Gonzalez that other sources support the 6'5" height. Please discuss this at the article's talk page, and don't engage in an edit war. RudolfRed (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Ian656787. The best place for you to point that out would be at Talk:Tony Gonzalez. It's quite possible that it's something which has been previously discussed before and a consensus was established to list his height as 6'5". If that's the case, then perhaps you've found some new source to support the change and others will agree with you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ian656787, arguing about minor variations in the reported height of a professional athlete is counterproductive and disruptive. Height measurements can vary a bit from morning to evening. Please find an area to edit that is productive and actually improves the encyclopedia. This isn't it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, Ian656787, NFL Combine Results is a blog, and blogs are very rarely reliable sources for use as Wikipedia references. Please check at the Reliable sources noticeboard before using this source again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Pictures

How can a user upload a photo, which than could be put on any Wikipedia article?

Stephengonzalez100 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard (which is linked under "Tools" in the sidebar). Make sure you read the image use policy first. Eman235/talk 05:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Help

I want to add my profile can you help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.124.137 (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a social media site where people add their own profiles. It is an encyclopedia with articles on notable subjects. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Creating page for a singer

I am trying to create a page for Meena Niraula who is very popular singer of Nepal. Please advice me how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saradpradhan (talk • contribs) 09:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Saradpradhan: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for wanting to work to improve Wikipedia. I would caution you that successfully creating an article is probably the most difficult thing to do here. It takes much time and practice. Newer users are more successful if they start out editing existing articles, which helps them get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is being looked for in articles. Using the new user tutorial also helps new users. You should also read Your First Article.

In terms of creating an article for a singer, please understand that popularity is not necessarily the same as Wikipedia's special definition of notability for singers, which is written at WP:SINGER. This singer must meet at least one of the criteria listed there to merit an article. If they do, then you will need to gather as many independent reliable sources with significant coverage as you can find(at least three). Wikipedia isn't interested in what the singer says about themselves or in basic information found in press releases. If you can find such sources, you can draft an article using Articles for Creation, which allows you to submit it for review so you can get feedback before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You need references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate notability. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Saradpradhan: Further to what has been said above, it is a shame that you asked your question an hour after having starting to create this new article in the main part of the encyclopaedia. I notice that Robert McClenon put what we call a 'speedy deletion' notice it, and then you came here. Now, I have looked at what you wrote, and a guick glance at what I can find online about her, and I think you may actually stand a chance, as there seems to be a number of credible sources that talk about her in some depth (see here and here). So, I have removed the deletion tag and have converted your page in a draft which you should work on 'before' attempting to have it reviewed for the main part of the Wikipedia encyclopaedia (we refer to this as 'mainspace'). You can work on it for as long as you like, though if left unedited for a period of 6 months it will then be deleted. So there is no rush! Do read Wikipedia:Your first article and remember that we base decisions on whether an article is accepted by the inclusion of good, detailed, reliable and independent references to show that it meets the notability guidelines for musicians. We care little about YouTube videos, whereas articles in the Himalayan Time or Kathmandu Times, or national chart listings are far more likely to be taken seriously. When you add references, try to learn how to do it well, so please also take a little time to understand how this is done by reading Help:Referencing for beginners. I'm sorry your first experience here seemed a little frustrating, but I do hold out hope for a good quality article from you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Spaces between inline citations

Hi, everybody, I found a pair of inline citations in an article, which are separated by a space. Something like:

some long sentence ends here.<ref>xxx</ref> <ref>yyy</ref> Another sentence.

which renders more or less like:

some long sentence ends here.^{[1] [2]} Another sentence.

I took a quick, 5-minutes tour over the MoS, but didn't find appropriate guideline: should consecutive references be separated as above, or rather touch one another, like:

some long sentence ends here.^[1][2] Another sentence starts

The separation makes the links more legible, but it also makes them prone to separating by a line-wrapping. Same applies to a reference separated from the sentence:

some long sentence ends here. <ref>xxx</ref> Another sentence.

which may render like:

some long sentence ends here.
^[1] Another sentence.

Is there any guideline I overlooked, which defines a common way to handle this issue?

How about possible multiple references with page notes added?

a sentence ends here.<ref>xxx</ref>{{rp|17–20}}<ref>yyy</ref>{{rp|14,80}} Another sentence.

a sentence ends here.^[1][2] Another sentence.

They seem to crowd. An intervening space makes them much more clear:

a sentence ends here.^{[1] [2]} Another sentence.

So, finally my question: should I remove such spaces in front of, or between references, or let them alone? --CiaPan (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No spaces, see MOS:REFSPACE. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, David Biddulph, quick and precise. :) CiaPan (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@CiaPan: Great answer from David. One thing still worth trying to do for clarity in situations where you happen to have a few references, but only one with an {{rp}} template, is to order the references so that the more specific one with a page number comes last. Normally I like to see reused references in numerical order, all other things being equal - such as their value as a source, but this is one time when having a page-specific reference at the end does seem to make it easier to view. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick Moyes, for very valuable input. Much appreciated! --CiaPan (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

new article

how can an article be published directly without review process? is it user dependent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uqbarist (talk • contribs) 01:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Uqbarist, Users need to meet WP:CONFIRM to be allowed to create pages without review, due to high incidence of spam and other page creations not meeting Wikipedia guidelines. It is highly recommended for new users wishing to create articles to read Wikipedia:Your first article for an introduction to those guidelines. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you asking how to do it? Or are you incredulous that it is allowed? David notMD (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Uqbarist Greetings. I have to disagree with User:Alpha3031 on above message. All articles created irregardless the editor is a confirmed editor or create the article via article for creation or via new page, the article would subject to be reviewed by reviewers (AfC / New Page) and it the article is accepted then it will be published in Wikipedia mainspace. If an editor has the Wikipedia:Autopatrolled user right, then the article will exempt from review. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, please be aware that AfC and New Page Patrol are very different processes, although both help review new content. Also, over 5000 editors are designated as autopatrolled, so that is a major exception to your assertion about "all articles". Most of the autopatrolled editors have written dozens or hundreds or thousands of new articles each, so as a group, they have created a significant percentage of the content of the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 Greetings. Thank you for adding additional info. I do aware of both processes as I am one of the reviewers for both AfC and NPP and also autopatrolled user myself, that is the reason why I said it required an editor to have autopatrolled user right. I might have chosen a diff wording on NPP article on "review" as we could either accept the article if it meet the Wikipedia notability requirements, CSD or moved draft to draft page if no source is provided so in this sense it is like a review the article prior it is accepted to be published in the mainspace and article could be indexed in search engine. Let me know if my understanding is incorrect. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I have no doubt that you are editing in good faith. However, I think that you have a long way to go before you are able to express complex thoughts in clearly written English language prose. Your writing style is a bit confusing, and clarity is important here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 Agree that my command of English is not as good as yours and understand a good faith edit might view as disagreeable. I use the word "review" as oppose to "patrol" as NPP (new page patroller) has changed to NPR (new page reviewer) - see New page reviewer, thus it is reasonable to say a reviewer 'review' an article. I do appreciate your comments as you are extremely knowledgeable of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and a good Teahouse host. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey! The discussion does not guide Uqbarist, who has asked a simple question here (and also at Helpdesk) and has made no other edits. So, comes back to: Are you asking how to do it? Or are you incredulous that it is allowed? David notMD (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Claim abandoned username

I created an account on Wikipedia five years ago, but somehow messed up the password and immediately lost access to the account before taking the time to set my email or make two edits to rub together. I want to create a new account and claim my old username, but I don't know how to do so. At one point, I saw a Wikipedia policy for how one could claim an abandoned username, but I didn't qualify at that time. Now I can't manage to dig up even a hint of that policy anymore to check if I qualify yet. Does that policy no longer exist, or if it does, where can I find it? 96.42.42.136 (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to WP:USURP. You could also just create a new account and on its user page identify it as a successor to your old account; that would probably be less hassle. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

How to upload my biography on wikipedia

Hello! would you please help me how to upload my biography on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Mumba (talk • contribs) 12:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Just ...don't! --CiaPan (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Joshua Mumba: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place for people to write about or tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Your User page is a place for you to briefly describe your intentions and background as a Wikipedia editor. NOT a place for an autobiography or resume. From what you have written there and in your Sandbox, you are not famous enough for other people to have written about you, and thus not a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article. I hope you do see value in helping edit existing Wikipedia articles in areas where you have an interest. David notMD (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Series overview error

Hello,

On the List of Horrible Histories episodes article, there seems to be a coding error in the ‘colour code’ section of the series overview table. I can’t seem to fix it, is anyone able to help out? The table just doesn’t look right, compared to other series overviews I’ve seen. Thank you! – Joesimnett (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Someone made an edit in October 2018 that caused the error. I've reverted to the good version from before then. - X201 (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Before I resubmit

Hi, I'm putting a Wikipedia article together for an actor that has a very long list of movies, what is the best way to show his work and be accepted as the list is too long right now... Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DawnPiercy916 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@DawnPiercy916: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would ask you if you represent this actor. As you were told on your draft, Wikipedia is not a place to just list someone's accomplishments or work(unlike IMDB which is for that); this is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources state about a subject. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@DawnPiercy916: Right now there are no sources listed for your article, only links to other Wikipedia pages. Here is how I would approach this. Look for reliable third-party media coverage of the actor, whether in the United States or Sweden. For what constitutes a reliable source, please see WP:RS. Then, distill what you can from the sources. Do not include any information that can’t be sourced reliably. If you have to go to a site controlled by the subject in order to get enough biographical information, chances are he will not neet the notability threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. Hope this helps. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed the references to words that are Wikipedia sites, replacing with Wikilinks. This resulted in the draft having no references. If no references, no chance of becoming an article. Separately, you should answer the question as to what - if any - connection you have to the actor. David notMD (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on this googlesearch [1], I don't think you can create a surviving WP-article at this time. Sources like [2] and [3] are generally reliable, but they don't help you since they only mention him in passing. Take the time to read Wikipedia:Notability (people), that may give you some ideas. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

TurboTax Edits

Hi,

I'm getting lit on fire by some other editors for trying to add "FreeTaxUSA" to a list of TurboTax competitors. I think it should also be listed under a list of DIY tax filing software. They say I'm trying to promote it, when really I'm just trying to list it like H&R Block or the other sites listed.

Any suggestions? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.211.157.1 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Under unintended consequences, not only did an editor remove FreeTaxUSA at Tax compliance software (rightfully, as it does not have its own Wikipedia article), but also removed the entire list of do-it-yourself tax software programs. Dispute should continue on the Talk page of the article. Separately, I saw that a User StayWokeFam had added a FreeTaxUSA to TurboTax content, subsequently removed by a different editor. If that was your addition, please log in before asking questions here. David notMD (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to When "Why?" appears in an article!

I have found an answer to the "Why?" question above.I just need to know if it's OK to answer.I can supply the source where I got it.I just need to know if the answer is legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danthebeachman (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Danthebeachman: I removed the large block of spaces in your comment. If you think the topic and your answer is controversial, you might post on the talk page first. Otherwise you can be bold and make the change, and then if it's disputed anyone can revert it and then discuss on the talk page. Happy editing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

CHANGING THE TITLE ON THE PAGE FROM SSC PACIFIC TO NAVAL INFORMATION WARFARE CENTER PACIFIC

How do I change the title of a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NIWC (talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done - needs updating for old name references. I added a redirect for SSC Pacific, which made this hard to find. Here's a good source for the name change [[4]]. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Incorporated that reference into the article. (P.S. ALL CAPS is shouting, which may be Navy, but most of us are civilian volunteers.) David notMD (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Get rid of pop ups on my samsung s7

Now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.2.179 (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey IP user! Just found this you might find of use for your phone: Samsung Galaxy S7: How to Enable / Disable Popup View Gesture Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Is this Teahouse post disruptive editing? Should I report them to WP:ANI? Mstrojny (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mstrojny: No, no, no, no, no. I'm about to answer them. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi IP user. Welcome to the Teahouse. Popups are always annoying when you don't want them. It's possible that registering for a free Wikipedia user account will allow you to avoid seeing internal Wikipedia notices - but I recognise you might not wish to do that. However, having just logged out and tested viewing pages on my iPhone in mobile view, I'm not actually seeing any annoying notices on-screen, except one initial big notice about talk page discussions which can be cleared via the 'X' in the top right, and shouldn't return too often. But, when I am logged in, I don't seem to see them more than once. So that could be your solution to create an account, and then login once and stay logged in to view the pages you want to see.

Just in case I've misunderstood you, are these pop-up notices commercial adverts? If so, they won't be coming from Wikipedia. (Our annoying notices usually appear at the top of the screen every autumn when they seek a donation drive to keep the projects going, or when they want to advertise things like their current consultation about Talk pages.) If you'd like to provide more details of exactly what type of pop-up you're seeing, or if you've viewing our pages through a particular App, that might let us help you further. Sorry to hear you so frustrated. (oh, I should add that despite my tiny iphone 5 screen size, I never view Wikipedia in mobile view. Right at the bottom there's a link to switch to 'Desktop view'. I much prefer it, as do many other editors and users. (Post script: I've just added right at the top a possible solution for you)

(And a note to Mstrojny to say that an IP posting one question like this here would never be something to get het up about. I sense their frustration - one post can't be construed as disruptive. Always check their edit histories and assume good faith. Let's not hang 'em high to quickly! )Nick Moyes (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I'm glad that you told me that. I just wanted to make sure that is a legitimate Teahouse question and not trolling. Mstrojny (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

How to battle at ANI

Off topic for the Teahouse

Ah... ANI how can combat my block request with other admins? They seem to not care about my good edits, only the negative stuff. I have been a host of this Tea House for four years, but still unfaithful and unfortunately not trusted. Keep in mind I am absolutely not asking for WP:CANVASS. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC) I decided and promised not to participate ANI anymore, it's up to the admins to decide the outcome, and hopefully it will the right one. I will just keep my fingers crossed. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Hey ImmortalWizard. My advise would be to consider the feedback given in the thread, and to treat it as primarily feedback even when it may seem that it's worded to be intentionally abrasive. Then refocus your editing, and resolve to spend the next long while helping us improve articles, rather than editing drama boards and technical behind-the-scenes areas. When you've resolved to do so, post a short comment at the ANI thread to that effect. Then unwatchlist ANI, don't reply to the thread any further, and find an article that needs a lot of work. GMGtalk 20:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC) As you say. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with concentrating on mainspace ImmortalWizard. That's where all the important stuff goes on anyway, and the behind the scene stuff is way overrated, especially as it concerns people who are here primarily to argue. Don't underestimate the improvement in your wiki-quality-of-life you get when you unwatchlist ANI, and never watchlist it again. GMGtalk 21:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC) @GreenMeansGo: I thought it was for abuse, but apprarently it does arguments as well...?  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 21:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC) @Serial Number 54129: No it doesn't! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC) I understand and completely agree with you. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Trying to redeem by doing productive stuff like this. Hoping others recognize this. Article talk pages are important though. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Well ImmortalWizard. The thing with Wikipedia is that about half of our six million articles are stubs, and what we really need, and are desperately begging for, are the kind of people who can take stubs, and turn them into articles. We really don't have six million articles. We have about three million articles and about three million placeholders where articles should go. If you're the kindof person who can take placeholders and put articles there, then there is no shortage of people who will defend you for making a mistake now and then. GMGtalk 23:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC) GreenMeansGo what is "meta-discussion topic ban"? Is it for things like ANI and "behind the scenes"? As long as they are not user talks and page talks (so that I can do my usual GA reviews and other stuff), I am down for that THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)