Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 444

This is an current talk page .

Hi I edited a page yesterday after I had created an account, user name etc. The page I edited is called Forever More (band). It's about a Scottish group/band from the 1960s/70s. When I enter the name into Google it only finds the old page, but if I login the newly edited page comes up immediately. Can you please help? Best wishes Amber EliasAmber Elias (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Amber Elias, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not entirely clear about the precise issue that is causing a concern. If you are referring to the brief text shown in Google search results, that is something beyond Wikipedia's control, and entirely normal that it does not update instantly or even in a small number of days. It can sometimes take even weeks or months for that text (which is cached on Google's servers) to catch up with changes. Wikipedia does seem to be unofficially a high priority site for Google (they will never comment on things like sites which get extra priority from them), so it should hopefully catch up within a shorter period of time. If that is not the issue, please explain in more detail. I hope that is of some help to you. Murph9000 (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Murph9000, Thanks for your reply. I'll try to give you more detail. Yesterday I edited an article and clicked on save page. Is that all I had to do or did I miss something? I didn't see anything to click on about uploading or posting the article? When I search for the article in Google it only comes up with a link to the old page not to my new version. Does Wikipedia upload the article for the public to see immediately or does it take a while for the article to be found by Google? Best wishes Amber EliasAmber Elias (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:UNSOURCED

.

As long as you are seeing the same page when you click on the search result in Google (and follow Google's link to view the result on Wikipedia), as you see when you directly visit Forever More (band) on Wikipedia, your job is done (other than maybe needing to discuss your changes on the article talk page, as above, and make further constructive edits), and you just need to patiently await Google's automatic web crawler to update their cached copy in their huge database. If you are seeing a completely different page when you visit the link in search results, please tell us the exact search that you are putting into Google and let us see the URL that you are reaching when you click on the result in Google. Changes should generally be on public view instantly on Wikipedia, but it takes a while before Google reflects that change in the shortened version shown in search results.

If any of that is unclear, please do ask further questions.

Murph9000 (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed Draft:Emma Lovett and declined it as non-neutral and lacking a proper lede sentence. User:Gmw4313 asked me: “You declined my submission, but thank you for the speedy review. I have entered a lede statement, and adjusted the naming convention (though when the page referred to her husband, it became awkward.) I removed most of the peacock language. I am sure some remains. I am not sure what to do about references. I believe an award winner in an entertainment field that just recently started presenting awards is worthy of a page. Some of the material I put on the draft page, I looked up her e-mail address and asked her. What specifically can I do to make the references stronger, yet maintain the interesting features of putting the page together at all? ” I am not quite sure what the question is about references. The draft does have references. I have notability questions about the subject of the article, but not questions about references. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

To address notability concerns, I observe that the page "LittleRedBunny" was sufficiently notable to go live.Gmw4313 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The LittleRedBunny article cites a Daily Mail article about her. I don't see anything as reliable among the Emma Lovett references (though, with the way the referencing is done, it is rather hard to tell). Maproom (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has two topics going on:

1. References. I will gladly work with someone to strengthen the quality of my references.

2. Notability. I raised the topic of LRB's page because it seems that the award is what makes her notable. Emma Lovett won an award at the same presentation event.

The page needs work and I am willing to cooperate. I am having difficulty understanding why a reference makes one person more notable than another.Gmw4313 (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It may be that your difficulty in understanding is that you weren't aware of Wikipedia's definition of notability. It refers to the topic having "... received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ...", so the reliability of the sources is vital in demonstrating notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes sense. It gives me a direction to work with.Gmw4313 (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I received the following inquiry from User679699sof

"Robert---One of the photos I uploaded was deleted. How do I find that photo on wiki so that I can email [email protected] ? Is there a place on Wiki where I can see the images that I have uploaded and those that are being considered or were deleted? Please advise." Can someone who is more familiar with Commons and images advise this editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I believe that only a Commons administrator or an OTRS rep can see a deleted file. So, I suggest that 679699sof try contacting the administrator who deleted the image. It looks like four images uploaded to Commons were deleted according to c:User talk:679699sof. These were deleted by Commons administrators c:User:Natuur12 and c:User:Jameslwoodward. I'm not sure exactly which of the four images 679699sof wants to see, so not sure which of the two administrators they should contact. If 679699 has received verification via Commons OTRS that a previously deleted image is now OK or wish to request a temporary undeletion, then they can request that the relevant image be undeleted by following the instructions at c:COM:UNDEL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you 679699sof (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

An article on "Victor Zelman, Australian Artist" has been prepared and is now ready. What needs to be done now please? mc dillon 23:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillon.benalla (talk • contribs)

Hi Dillon.benalla, if the article is in draft you can do a move on it and put it in mainspace. I really can't tell what you're asking from the question though, unless it's that. If you have a different question, let us know. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Add: I see that it's in your userpage. I guess you will have to copy-paste it. It's also not quite ready; it could use an infobox, wikilinks and some wikifying first. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks WAF. I am finding this process somewhat baffling and have no understanding of the process. I have created an account and in my user space created an article (at least that is what I think has been done). I do not see how to "put it into mainspace". Thanks for your additional useful comments. Is an infobox a brief summary? mc dillon 23:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillon.benalla (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

Your first article. Please be aware that drafts of articles should be written in your sandbox, or draft space. However, I think that I drafted my first article in my user space, so your assumption is understandable. Your draft article is nowhere near ready to be moved to the encyclopedia main space, in my opinion. There are obvious holes in your draft where you have indicated missing information with underlining. This is fine for a draft, but the missing information must be resolved, one way or another, before this becomes part of the encyclopedia. There are many unreferenced assertions in your draft, and confusing abbreviations. Your draft needs to be readable and understandable for anyone who understands English, without specialized knowledge. Every substantive assertion should be referenced to a reliable source. Some of your references seem to be referring to two sources. Please think in terms of one reference = one source. Please do a complete rewrite in meticulous accordance with "Your first article" , tighten it up, remove all unreferenced assertions, and ask again for input from experienced editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

05:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dillon.benalla. I see you pasted your draft into article space at Victor Zelman but it seems to be mixing up several people. It starts out "Alberto Zelman (1832 – 1907) was a violinist, painter and etcher originally from Trieste, mostly known for his art created after he moved to Australia in 1871." But Victor Zelman (1877-1960) was the artist. He was the brother of Alberto Zelman (violinist and founder of the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra) and they were both the sons of the lesser known musician Alberto Zelman (senior) who born in Trieste. Neither Alberto Senior nor Alberto Junior was an artist. I'm not sure what sources you are using, but it still needs an enormous amount of work to make it coherent and verifiable. Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi

lead, and I started one for you as a placeholder in this edit. Anyway, I can fix the copyright issue right now (I could do so by a history merge but I'm not bothering). I hereby donate my edits to your userpage, now contained at Victor Zelman, into the public domain.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 22:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Although Fuhghettaboutit has solved the copyright problem in this case,

WP:Copy and paste move. --David Biddulph (talk

) 16:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I have just renamed a page on my wiki but it now has a sentence at top right saying "(redirected from...)" How do I get rid of that sentence? 109.150.157.226 (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, 109.150.157.226, welcome to the Teahouse. It seems from your question that you are asking for technical support on a wiki not controlled by the

WP:VPT would be the better place to ask, although it's not something that will be likely to be change on WMF wikis, as it is an intended feature which serves a useful purpose. For non-WMF wikis, please see mw:User hub and mw:Sysadmin hub for comprehensive documentation and various ways to get help with using the MediaWiki software. Murph9000 (talk

) 11:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You can hide it with CSS

span#redirectsub {display:none;}

(you can stick that code in for example mediawiki.css or in your common.css)

Or you can edit MediaWiki:Redirectpagesub

The Quixotic Potato (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

But you may wish merely to remove the redirect code from the previous page, then of course it won't say "(redirected from...)" on the new page. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello IP address. Murph9000 has assumed that by "My Wiki" you mean "My own particular one of the thousands and thousands of wikis on the internet, of which Wikipedia is the best known". I am guessing that you mean "The page on Wikipedia that I have been working on". In either case probably, you see "redirected from" because you are getting to the page by giving its original name: the Move that you did has left a redirect page behind to take you automatically to its new name. If you search for it by its new name, you won't see that message, because you won't have gone via the redirect. --ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Note ignore the space between the p and the ; that is for technical issues. I have found that some articles have &nbsp ; in some places. (example: 40&nbsp ;MB) This appears to be a space ( ). It makes it more difficult to edit so I just remove them as it is visually the same. So my question is: what does &nbsp ; do, why do people use it, and can I just delete it? Hungryce (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't delete it because it is a non-breaking space which prevents the number and its units being displayed on separate lines. I agree that it makes it harder to edit, but it is worth the extra hassle to improve the display. See Non-breaking space for details. Dbfirs 21:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@

MOS:NBSP probably explains the non-breaking space for you and why it is best to leave them in place. Nthep (talk

) 21:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok thank you! That makes sence I just did not know what it was for.

You will need to reverse your edits to 4G (and maybe other articles?). I'll leave it for you to sort out rather than reverting your edits. Dbfirs 22:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I am new (but not so young). I often find outdated links. I tried to edit one yesterday, simply by copy-paste. It was an external link. How should I update an external link? Wimke Kloek (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi

WP:DEADLINK.

Otherwise I think it would be useful for you to explain the specifics of the difficulty you encountered when you tried to repair a link by copy-paste yesterday. I mean, if the link took the common form [http://www.name.html description that will display], then the repair would be to replace the entire URL (making sure you do not erase the bracket at the beginning, and keep the space before the start of the description). But it might have been placed in some other manner, such as through a template. I did see your update to the external link description at Willem Elsschot, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about. Can you advise? Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 22:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wimke Kloek (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@

Help:Wiki markup#External links. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 23:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Wikipedia:Your first article—it does a good job of explaining our expectations of new articles. Best, Mz7 (talk

) 02:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Neil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeyepierce68 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 23 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse

WP:UPYES for what you may put on your user page. —teb728 t c

05:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Neil. I am sorry to say there is no place on Wikipedia for blog content like what you entered at User:Neil's journey through life 2015. I have tagged it for speedy deletion. —teb728 t c 06:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Neil. As for pictures, see Help:Files for an overview of how to upload and use pictures. —teb728 t c 05:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ponduru page was edited by Vin09 in 2014. He has deleted the complete information about Ponduru khadi with references. Similarly he has deleted bulk of information from Jadcherla also. May I know any specific reason.Rajasekhar1961 04:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

WP:OR

, which is the Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Please visit the WP:OR link to see the full policy, but I will include the "nutshell" summary of the policy here:

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.

Jadcherla was trimmed down both for

reliable sources

. I've not looked at the content in detail, so I am not offering judgement on that right now.

Murph9000 (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've just done a little more investigation, and there was only one reference in the "Ponduru Khadi" section, as far as I could see. It has become invalid due to "link rot", which is when a bare URL is used as a reference, instead of a full citation recording the title, author, date, etc of the article. This is why it is important to construct citations in full detail, as a bare URL can very easily transition from a verifiable source to unsourced, making the related content eligible for deletion. Murph9000 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Murph9000: I'll improve it with more genuine reference very quickly on both pages. Any more issues, please ping me.--Vin09 (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question satisfactorily.--Rajasekhar1961 06:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I would really appreciate some specific tips as to how to improve this page I have been working on

I don't want to necessarily add more text in case that causes more problems. But if there's anything you can see that I should do I'd love to know, thanks! Loolah

Loolah (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey

cite av media}}. All punctuation, commas, periods, semi-colons, etc., should appear before the citation(s), so fix every instance of that, e.g., of " ^[1]; " with " ;^[1] " Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 00:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit that gives me a good few things to work on in terms of the format. Loolah (talk) 08:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to ask, if I might become administrator, as I had to check out the pictures they are not damaged, and so on? How to recognize?--Lukaslt13 --Talk 17:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no chance of you becoming an administrator in the forseeable future. Your command of English is inadequate and you don't understand many of the basics of Wikipedia (which led to comments on your user talk page regarding your competence to act as a Teahouse host). The guidance is at Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Could someone look at his recent afd's too please, they are either incorrect or incoherent, his editing is becoming disruptive. Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

A user called Lukaslt13 was indefinitely blocked on lt.wikipedia a week ago. I think that was for being a "clone" (which I suspect means a sock-puppet) but I haven't investigated further. --ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Google Translate FTW. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've actually wondered for a while whether this editor's poor English is a result of them using Google Translate for their contributions here. Lukaslt13, you are likely to stand a better chance of becoming an administrator once you are a bit older and your ability to contribute and communicate in English improves. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I know that I need the skills, but I'm not blind Copying! I check every word that he translated well! And Lithuanian Wikipedia did not understand me. And when I sent Welcome! templates, hence that was anyway, and some users made contributions. And I really beg your pardon, but anyway I am happy that many articles created! The adoption of criticism as I could, so do not be surprised. I hope that in the future even improve. I want to do today 700 amendments, and as soon as you help me, because only then we will be friendly rather than "stupid." Sorry, for the expression, but it sometimes happens. Thanks!.--Lukaslt13 --Talk 09:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

Lukaslt13: Your edits to article on Lithuanian villages are good contributions to Wikipedia. So are your edits to articles generally, as far as I can tell. They contain grammatical errors, but these are easy to correct. But posting welcome messages to new users which contain the words "If you need help ... ask me on my talk page" is not so helpful. If a new user does ask for help on your talk page, your English may not yet be good enough to give a useful answer. Maproom (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well mistake, but did corrected, as you say yourself, because you can do? The Lithuanian VIkipedijoj for example, a user just register, just talk to him a greeting page, but here everywhere: Thanks for the changes... I really wanted to work at the heart here. And do not get me wrong. I do not know what would happen if you block me here, maybe "die" because as Wikipedia told me there are others like Counter Strike, so I am here Wikipedia, day and night to let here. Thanks you.--Lukaslt13 --Talk 11:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

109.77.18.33 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Try asking at the Reference desk. This is for questions about editing. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Where can I find a list of newly created psychology articles? Min al Khadr (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Min al Khadr, welcome to the Teahouse. A good starting point is probably WikiProject Psychology, the central coordination project for articles relating to psychology. Please have a look at what is there, and ask further questions either on their talk page, or back here. Murph9000 (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Min al Khadr, welcome to Teahouse. Index of psychology articles might help you too. It's a list of psychology articles. Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

But it hasn't been updated since the 6th November. --ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Min al Khadr If by chance you're looking for "new" articles because you want to find psychology articles needing development, then you could search for articles tagged with {{psych-stub}} using the what links here feature: direct link I don't know of any way to generate a list of new ones, but using User:Ais523/catwatch.js, you could also set it up so that when articles are first added to certain categories, such as Category:Psychology and subcategories shown through that page, the category pops up on your watchlist, with the name of the newly-added article. To do so, go to your personal JS and add the code importScript('User:ais523/catwatch.js');, but then you need to create the separate page Min al Khadr/WatchedCategories.js. Place there:

var WatchedCategories=new Array(
 
 // Place categories in this list. There should be a comma in all rows
 // but the last; make sure the names start with a capital letter, have
 // the correct case for all other letters, and don't have Category:
 // before them. This watchlist cannot be kept private (that is, other
 // users will be able to tell which categories you are watching).
 //
 // After editing this list (either for the first time or if you change
 // it later on) you will need to bypass your cache.
 
 "Name of category (do not prefix "category")",
 "Next category name",
 "Last category name has no comma"

 );

Make sure to then

bypass your cache. Note that many user who have tried this needed to log out and restart their browsers before it would work, even after bypassing the cache. I find the feature invaluable. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 16:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm working to expand an article, and as part of this, I found a source that had been used in the article, Lucrezia Tornabuoni. Unfortunately, it seems I found a different edition than the one used previously, as the page numbers don't seem to line up. What's the best way within the reference structure of that article to add more information from the source? Do I adjust the pages and reference to match the edition I have, or is there a good way to reference two editions of the same book? 1bandsaw (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The {{cite book}} template has a parameter for edition, so you would create two separate refs, one for each edition which would be identical apart from the edition parameter.--ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed

Either the standard decline templates are not helpful (and they have been criticized), or my additional remarks confused the author, or the author just doesn’t understand. Can someone else please explain to the author that I said that draft needed more in-line citations, not fewer? Can someone else please explain that we can’t rely on what David Reimer says about himself, or what his ghost-writer says about him, only what independent third-party sources say about him? Maybe I should have said that the overall tone of the draft was hagiographic. Is the author of the draft being paid by David Reimer? Can anyone comment further? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, User:Palm Village. Can I suggest that you have a read of Wikipedia:No original research? Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't the place to publish original writing. Everything here has to be based on what reliable sources say about the subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

How do I trouble shoot? I read the help:date FAQ and my formatting is correct. 173.51.205.65 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, 173. Perhaps I could help if I knew the specifics of the problem; what page is it occurring on, and what is the error message? If I can see the broken syntax, I could take a stab at fixing it. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Very much appreciate the offer. I wound up fixing the issue by deleting the reference and reinserting the information. There may have been a typo I did not see, or it may not have liked the date I had for the journal ("Spring-Summer 1985"). Anyhow, I appreciate the response and wish you well. 173.51.205.65 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I was looking through a list of new articles recently and came across one that had been AfD'd. I thought the references adequately supported the notability of the subject, so I left a !vote on the AfD page. However, I checked back the next day and discovered that a new editor had made a comment like: "Delete Sources Do Not Show Notability". Their contribs showed that they had commented on 5 or 6 other AfDs (in the exact same manner) and other than maybe a couple of article edits and a comment on a user's talk asking if creating GAs brought perks, have done nothing. I'm sort of concerned that they are not really eligible to make judgment calls on what makes a reliable source or not. (The AfD I commented on and first saw them on had a lot more voting for keep than for delete.) I left them a welcome message with a note about the GAs, but I'm wondering if maybe the policy should be changed to keep brand new people from the AfDs. (Like not letting them edit the pages until they're autoconfirmed.) I do get that a lot of newbies know the basic rules and some that edited as IPs are very knowledgeable, but it seems like people without knowledge of the rules could screw up the AfD process--getting bad articles kept and valuable ones deleted. I don't know. I'm just sort of wondering if anyone else has seen this and is concerned by it. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse,

Articles for Deletion debates will disregard any "keeps" or "deletes" that are not based on policies and guidelines. I agree with you that this editor is not starting out well. We can hope that they will learn. The biggest problem at AfD right now, in my opinion, is a shortage of active participants. It is a very important maintenance function and any editor with a basic understanding of our content policies and guidelines is invited to help out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

00:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother folks but I wonder if anyone would care to comment on the proposed deletion of the article about Jamais Cascio. The discussion currently stands at one comment for, one against, with no activity for several days (yes, I have put up a bio rfc). I get that this is about document quality, and have been trying to maintain and update it to BLP standards. I would appreciate a little support, or constructive comments on why it's so terrible. Thanks. Arfisk (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Technically, at this point the article has been

proposed for deletion and then deleted, but that doesn't matter. The current AFD can run its seven-day course. Robert McClenon (talk

) 02:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think AFC is for new articles. Unless I am missing something, this is a 2005 article. —teb728 t c 09:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

True. This is an AFD of an old article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

In retrospect, going through the afc process would have been better. This is one of those cases where a long established but underpowered article has caught the eye of an editor who has decided to summarily delete it under blp guidelines. To the uninitiated, this looks a lot like vandalism (it isn't). I came in 4-5 months ago to reinstate and update it. The same editor is again pushing for its removal. Arfisk (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hej! I was looking something up on here a few moments ago; information about a skin condition called "Bullae" - now, the term

double redirect it would probably have been fixed by a bot. --David Biddulph (talk

) 01:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If you could show that "bullae" is used exclusively for the skin condition, then you would have a case for a more direct link, but Wikipedia has to allow for other meanings, including three alternative medical usages. Dbfirs 09:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, is there any advice about what to do with the disambiguation at the top of this page

Actually, having had a cup of tea, I think I answered above my own question. If anyone wants to take a look anyway, that would be nice. YuHuw (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you review the article and help me make it adhere to all wiki pedia guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nadaa_Dee%5CDubai_Plus

Nadaa Dee (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your userspace draft was wrongly named by the editor who moved it. I have moved it from

User:Nadaa Dee/Dubai Plus. I will leave other editors to comment on the draft. --David Biddulph (talk

) 13:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The draft does not start by explaining what it's about. It variously calls its subject "a first City Privilege Card program", "a smart card", and a "City Privilege Card". It seems that it's about a discount card: this ought to be explained in the first sentence. Also, I strongly suspect that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's standard of

notability. Maproom (talk

) 13:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I have already posted on the Talk page about the Wiktionary definition indicating that one could be seen as a subset of another.

Is there anything to be done beyond that?

--JamesPoulson (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it unlikely that anyone wanting to know about popular presentation of science would start by typing "vulgarisation". The redirect, originally to "vulgarism", was created by CALR. You could ask him why he created it. Maproom (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I was searching for vulgarisation as a ressource to explain the approach used to simplifying technical material but the current page doesn't answer that. Going to post on his Talk page now. --JamesPoulson (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It's the first time I want to write somethingl, my draft: Draft:Darya_Safai can somebody help me a little bit and get me on the wayStannieke (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stannieke. There is an article about Darya Safai on the Dutch Wikipedia that may be of some use, though the references are poorly formatted. When I do a Google News search, I see lots of coverage in Dutch language reliable sources, mostly published in Belgium where she now lives. It is OK to cite reliable sources in other languages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wish this were easier. Sorry to bother you. Could you give me instructions on two options? 1) Content I've generated was not finalized, simply saved, and then it was exposed to a reviewer and given "speedy deletion" stamp. How can it get the new copy evaluated for appropriateness? 2) If not appropriate, how do I simply get out of this mess and have everything deleted? Lyn StanleyAllTimeMusic (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse

Lyn Stanley (vocalist) has only been nominated for deletion; in a few minutes an administrator will decide whether it should be deleted. In the mean time you have an opportunity to make it less promotional. If it is deleted you can start over using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. There you can create an article in Draft namespace, where it will be less at risk of speedy deletion, and when it is ready, you can submit it for review by an experienced editor. —teb728 t c

04:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Is AllTimeMusic the name of a company? Please see Wikipedia:Username_policy#Promotional_names. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Lyn Stanley. I just noticed that you are writing about yourself. Although that is not forbidden, it is strongly discouraged. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography. —teb728 t c 04:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, please read the

Conflict of interest guideline. The Quixotic Potato (talk

) 05:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to get out of this all together. Many of "fans" have asked that a submission be created about me. I followed one done by Tierney Sutton, an American Jazz singer, where she includes her website as well. I have asked for help in getting this task done, but professional writers are discouraged as well from submissions. A.T. Music LLC is the legal name of the entity owning my music. Would appreciate knowing how to DELETE this submission entirely and move on...can any one of you do this??AllTimeMusic (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Lyn Stanley (vocalist)

was refused and it was not deleted. Since you created the article, other editors have been working on the page, adding references to it.

Do you still wish for it to be deleted? If so, you can add the tag {{Db-author}} to the top of the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

As disambigutaion isn't required in this case, I have moved the article to

db-author}}.--ukexpat (talk

) 01:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way by which I can track the articles proposed for merger tagged with a particular WP tag, say for example WP Jainism? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to make a

Most of the cladogram doesn't even show up. I need help on this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: Oh wow, I've never seen one of these before. It seems that Template:Clade#Large_cladograms may provide some information on the limitations in size, though I'm not sure if that's what's going on here with the truncation. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Something like this may be what you want. —teb728 t c 09:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC) @Dunkleosteus77: —teb728 t c 09:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Talk

} 09:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi again

cladex}}, {{cladogram}}, {{barlabel

}} and

Large cladograms:

There are limitations on the size and complexity of the cladograms which can be drawn:

• A maximum of 17 children is allowed per node. It may seem that this could easily be increased by editing the template, but see the next point.
• Cladograms can only be expanded up to a certain level of complexity because the MediaWiki software limits the resources available for template expansion. The cladogram at APG III system#Phylogeny has had to be broken into three parts, because the entire cladogram exhausts the allowed resources (in this case the allowed expansion depth). Any change to the template could result in large cladograms failing to display correctly. In general, don't exceed a depth of 19, i.e. don't nest one {{[[Template:#ifeq:|#ifeq:]]|cladex|cladex|clade}} template inside another more than 19 times.

Is it possible to create a wikipedia page of my company?115.238.94.26 (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Wikipedia does not have "pages of or for companies". It does have articles about companies, that should be neutrally written, and based almost 100% on what people who have no connection with the company have published about it: what the company says or wants to say about itself is of very little relevance to Wikipedia.

So, if there is substantial material (not just directory entries or brief mentions) about your company, written by people unconnected with your company (so not from your company's website, or from interviews or press releases) and published in reliable places such as major newspapers (not blogs or user-generated sources such as social media) then Wikipedia will regard the company as

notable (in its own special sense) and we can have an article about it. You are discouraged from writing such an article, because your conflict of interest

may make it difficult for you to write in a sufficiently neutral manner; but you are not forbidden. If you wish to go ahead with it, I would advise the following:

1. Spend some time improving existing articles, both to get experience of editing, and to demonstrate that you are here to improve Wikipedia, not just to promote your company.
2. Read
   your first article and conflict of interest
3. Spend some time finding substantial indeendent reliable sources about your company.
4. Use the Article wizard to create a draft
5. Be open about your conflict of interest
6. Write a draft entirely based on what the independent sources say.

If you follow all these, you stand a much better chance that your article will be accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)