autobio editing
I have completed writing an autobiography of an Japanese actress I support. But the page keeps saying there is a problem. "Notification: proposed deletion of".小川 夏果 (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Normal WP practise regarding quotations
I am having trouble with an editor who (among other things) is altering the wording of several quotes in an article.
Unless I am mistaken we need to use the 'exact' wording in the source,[1] including mistakes, and using [sic] where appropriate.
Are we even supposed to link terms within quotes?
Examples:
- Source "all boosted fission devices using uranium 235"
- Edit "All boosted-fission devices uses U235"
- The change of "uranium 235" to "U235" I'm not sure about, though this is more a history page than a physics course so the 'scientific' way of saying U235 seems unecessary. Also changing "using" to "uses" and there's a hyphen added there too.
- Source "These boosted devices are like a half way stage towards a thermonuclear bomb. ..."
- Edit "These boosted-fission devices are like a half way stage towards a thermonuclear bomb. ..."
- They are re-adding "-fission", which is not in the source.
To top it off
- "Pakistan has had a nuclear capability since 1984 ...." becomes,
- "Pakistan has had a nuclear capability since 1983"
- They are actually changing the date without explanation! [[File:|25px|link=]] (And I have asked!)
My main query is, whether my idea of quote usage is correct? I know this isn't the place to 'whinge' about other editors, but any assistance and suggestions are welcome. 220 of Borg 10:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- 220 of Borg, WP:MOSQUOTE says (in the Original wording subsection): "Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose changes within square brackets ... If there is a significant error in the original statement, use [sic] or the template
{{sic}}
to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia" and, later in the Linking subsection "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader". See also WP:WHYCITE and the essay WP:QUOTE which says (in the Formatting subsection): "If not used verbatim, any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [square brackets] for added or replacement text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text (see WP:ELLIPSIS for details), and emphasis noted after the quotation as "[emphasis added]" or "[emphasis in the original]". Exceptions are trivial spelling or typographical errors that obviously do not affect the intended meaning; these may be silently corrected or may be retained and marked with " [sic]"—using the template {{sic}}—to indicate that the error is in the original source"
- So, from your description, without having reviewed the edits directly, it seems to me as if there may be a problem here. DES (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- DESiegel I think we do. (Have a problem that is.) They have used one summary recently, which was a bit hard to follow, [2] From my poking about, it seems they have only ever posted on one editor's talk page, 4 times, and most recently 21 months ago [3]. They have not replied directly to me at all, on their talk page, or mine. 220 of Borg 12:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi 220, this is just my opinion but: if the original quote was from a written source then it should be quoted exactly as per the original. However, if the original quote was spoken then spelling and formatting have just been assumed by others and thus I guess ok to be changed within reason if it still accurately represents what was said. So for your "uranium 235" to "U235" quote: if written it should as originally written, and if spoken then did they say uranium or U? Adding a hyphen to boosted fission is not a big deal, but adding "-fission" when it was not in the original not ok. A quote is a quote, if they want to re-interpret/clarify the meaning it should be either done outside the quote, or instead of the quote. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Some typographic changes to direct quotations are permissible; see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations. However, alterations that change the meaning of quotations should be avoided. That said, direct quotations for factual content such as that which you present above are not really appropriate anyway (see WP:QUOTE). In such instances, it would be far better to report the information and then cite the source, rather than trying to quote directly from it. Yunshui 雲水 11:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yunshui I'm not sure that the source 'nuclearweaponarchive.org' is that great, but it's what was already used on the page. As far as I am concerned, they are changing the meaning, not correcting typos or anything like that. I just see unexplained changes so that the 'quotes' are no longer supported 100% by the source. I find their grammar is suspect too anyway, see [4] which undoes part of an edit I did here.
- "The program accelerated when India eventually surprising the world with its first nuclear test". 220 of Borg 13:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Some typographic changes to direct quotations are permissible; see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations. However, alterations that change the meaning of quotations should be avoided. That said, direct quotations for factual content such as that which you present above are not really appropriate anyway (see WP:QUOTE). In such instances, it would be far better to report the information and then cite the source, rather than trying to quote directly from it. Yunshui 雲水 11:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- @KylieTastic: Opinion, are we allowed to have opinions here? I want some rules!
The source, here (which is also linked to in my post above) is written. The editor has changed it twice, and an IP has also altered it once. I have specified the problem in my edit summaries like here and here. I have also posted a long detailed
rantmessage on their talk page, here, mostly about this specific issue along with all the other template messages and warning/s they seem to have ignored.
- @KylieTastic: Opinion, are we allowed to have opinions here? I want some rules!
- They also have a penchant for linking everything, I mean everything, in sight, sometimes twice in the same paragraph, creating a wp:SEAOFBLUE. See here where among lots of other edits, I removed one link (PAEC) that was repeated 11 times. 220 of Borg 12:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- (e/c) Hi Borg. Quotes must be reproduced with fidelity. Any change (other than fixing ministerial matters such as spelling, which would not include a change like "uranium 235" to "U235") must be clearly marked or we are falsely attributing the source. For details, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations known by the shortcut MOS:QUOTE. Any falsely attributed quotes in Chagai-I should be reverted. Your edit summaries there say what you're doing, but don't explain much about why. It might help to explain the issue in more detail in them and link that manual of style section, such as "you cannot rewrite quotations in this way; they must be accurately reproduced. See [[MOS:QUOTE]]". Links in quotations are less of an issue. The advice usually given is that they should be avoided, as noted in the same section of the MoS (see also WP:LINKSTYLE), but it's a far more minor issue than false attribution. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Fuhghettaboutit, you may call me '220' (we're all friends here) It's what I was usually called in my IP editing days (Sigh!)
- Anyway, the links you (and DES/DESiegel) supplied seem to be what I was looking for, but couldn't find! I have put a big message on the editor's talk-page here pointing out the issues in detail. I have linked them to WP:OVERLINK, WP:Linking, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and wp:reliable sources at least. This seems like a massive case of WP:IDHT. I'm wary of 3RR, as AFAIK I've never hit it, though I should be safe as, as far as I am concerned, when they alter the quotes they are breaching WP:Verifiability, and/or deliberately adding errors.
(I have far more important thing to do than chase this editor, sigh! :-/ ) - 220 of Borg 13:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Blog written by staff of a research collections library
Hello I would like to strengthen articles on a number of topics, in some cases using links to blog posts written by research librarians and archivists. I understand the general rule about being very cautious about blogs. In the case I'm describing, the expertise of the writers is without question. What do you think? Regards, Elucidata (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
- So, the expert blogger cited has to be a previously published reliable source author on the topic in question. Other editors may disagree with your use of such a source. Be prepared to explain how the specific blogger qualifies as an expert. Assume good faith of everyone who objects, and negotiate toward consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Is this canvassing?
Two editors post thanks on a third editor’s talk page, and ask him to help improve an article. The third editor agrees, and suggests that the first two editors can “return the favor” (his words) by commenting on an ongoing RfC debate. (Here are the details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DrFleischman#Thomas_More_Law_Center). Is the third editor canvassing? Thanks! James James Cage (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, James Cage. Here is the summary description at WP:Canvassing:
- "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate."
- Among the acceptable reasons for notifying other editors is if they edit in closely related areas. In this specific case, two editors approached a third. It is clear that those two editors are involved with a similar article, and that the third editor asked them to consider participating in a discussion, but did not try to influence what they would say. Accordingly, I do not see this as canvassing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Pending changes/BLP unsourced
I've been doing pending changes review, and one of the most frequent things I see is small additions to BLPs that seem like good faith edits, aren't anything that seems at all contentious, but aren't sourced, in articles that are protected because of persistent vandalism (rather than being protected specifically to prevent the addition of unsourced material.) For instance, the insertion of a reasonable-sounding birthdate into an infobox, 'dancer' into a list that already includes 'choreographer', but no citation. I'm trying to clarify for myself what I should be doing. If the reason for the protection =isn't= specifically the prevention of the addition of unsourced material, and the edit seems to be good-faith, should I go ahead and accept and maybe stick a citation needed tag in? (This is assuming I don't have the time to do the research, or as often happens, haven't much interest in tracking down a reliable birthdate source that says, in addition to being a choreographer she's also a dancer, for a celebrity.)
Thanks for any advice! valereee (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Valereee: A full date of birth should never be added without a reliable source, per WP:DOB. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Joseph2302 Yeah, I know...I guess I'm confused because part of the instructions for pending changes seem to be that if the change is one that most editors wouldn't bother to -remove- if they came across it in general browsing, default setting is let it through. And I kind of figured most editors would probably drop a citation needed tag on these small more-or-less innocuous items. Or at least that's what I would probably do. But I do know BLPs are a different animal, which is why I was kind of wondering whether I was doing reviews right. So then the addition to the general instructions should probably be that in the case of BLPs on a page protected for any reason, =nothing= goes through without a source? valereee (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Valereee great question to ask at the Teahouse. I ran into the exact same problem while patrolling page edits with the STIki interface with schools! It was making me crazy that anyone and everyone would add a name claiming to be a notable alumni. I finally contacted the Wikiproject Schools about these unsourced addition of names to school articles and they told me to revert the addition of any names that were not the headmaster/superintendent/principal. I created a friendly, good-faith template that explains the reversions that I do to these articles that I send off to the person who added the name. Anyway, it made my editing reviews easier because half the time or more I think the kids are just adding the names of their buddies and friends to the article. It's nice to be able to remove them as unsourced, non-notable persons.
- Bfpage |leave a message 22:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- So, Bfpage, even if the headmaster's name wasn't sourced, it was okay to accept?
- Bfpage |leave a message 22:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Valereee great question to ask at the Teahouse. I ran into the exact same problem while patrolling page edits with the STIki interface with schools! It was making me crazy that anyone and everyone would add a name claiming to be a notable alumni. I finally contacted the Wikiproject Schools about these unsourced addition of names to school articles and they told me to revert the addition of any names that were not the headmaster/superintendent/principal. I created a friendly, good-faith template that explains the reversions that I do to these articles that I send off to the person who added the name. Anyway, it made my editing reviews easier because half the time or more I think the kids are just adding the names of their buddies and friends to the article. It's nice to be able to remove them as unsourced, non-notable persons.
valereee (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- According to the WikiProject School editors the answer is 'yes'.
- Bfpage |leave a message 01:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- According to the WikiProject School editors the answer is 'yes'.
- Valereee I for one routinely remove any full date of birth on a BLP article unless it is not only sourced, but sorced to soemthing indicating tht the subject is OK with it being out there, or else surced to soemthign that indicates tha tthe date is widely known already, published in multple national publications, say. See WP:DOB. For articles about no longer living people, I would not remove a DOB. and might not even bother with a {{fact}} tag. DES (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
So the question remains -- is ANYTHING unsourced, in a pending changes review in a BLP, okay? Or is this a toggle-switch situation -- nothing that isn't sourced should be accepted? valereee (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, not everyone would agree, But I would say it's a judgement call. I haven't done too much with pending changes (I was opposed to implmenting it, and i would favor removing it). But in reviewing regular changes, or while generally editing and article, here ar some inclinatiosn of mine. BLPs should be stricter about referncing than any other kind of article. Any negative content, any controversial content, and any direct quotes must have an inline citation. Anything that smells of POPV-pushing, or unsourced and unattributed opnion/evaluation is a problem. But routine statements need not all be sourced. For example in an articel about a famous chemist, a statment that he graduated from XYZ U in <year> with a PhD I would probably let stand. At most I would put a {{fact}} tag on it. A list of publications that gives bibliographic details is its own source, you don't need a citation to an RS to show that the subject wrote his published works. Simialrly, the early, comparitivly minor posts/jobs that a person held before becomming notable need not have cites to the bare fact that the subject held PostX from Year1 to Year2. Other routine non-controversial facts I would also say don't need cites. And of course, don't forget You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Statements that should have a cite -- awards, say -- I woud tag but not remove without warning. DES (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- DESiegel, thanks -- LOL, so I think this means 'get more familiar with things like WP:DOB and other things that might -seem- innocuous but really aren't, and then use judgment. :) Okay, that's good advice. I'll go reread the BLP stuff, maybe I need to brush up. Thanks, all, I appreciate all the help! valereee (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Editing 'Ohio'
Being a crazed 'Buckeye', I noticed several errors and omissions. How do I get the corrections made as 'Ohio' is edit locked? THANKS!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moravian1415 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @Moravian1415: Nice to see a fellow Buckeye ;) The article has been semi-protected to prevent vandalism, which means that only autoconfirmed accounts may edit it. An autoconfirmed account is one that is at least 4 days old and has made at least 10 edits. You've got two options:
- Seeing that you've made 10 edits, you can wait another couple of days or so until you become autoconfirmed.
- You can request a change be made by leaving a message at Talk:Ohio and placing
{{Edit semi-protected}}
by your message. This will alert other editors that you've requested a change be made to a protected article.
- Hope this helps! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks @SuperHamster: - OH-IO!
- Moravian1415 thanks for your visit to the Teahouse. I'm sorry to hear about you being a Buckeye, my condolances (GO! Michigan State!). But what I really want to say is that you could leave a message on the talk page of the article and ask another editor to make the change(s) for you. Your enthusiasm for editing should have an outlet and we don't want to hold you back from making good changes to the encyclopedia. SuperHamster I now understand the unusual user name you have since I often mistake hamsters for buckeyes...they are both brown and fuzzy. Best Regards,
- Bfpage |leave a message 22:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Bfpage |leave a message 22:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Word File for Pre-Review?
Hi! I'm a new contributer (or hope to be). My first attempt found a speedy deletion. The draft article has since been reinstated for rewrite. I should add for transparency that I have a technical COI (am an employee of the proposed company article) although I do not believe that notability will be a concern once properly referenced. Is it feasible to submit a Word form of a rewrite draft for preliminary review?Lcc46 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- There really isn't anywhere to submit a Word file for review. Please use the articles for creation process to create a draft "on wiki" that can be reviewed.--ukexpat (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
A versus An
In this article First Baptist Church (Muskogee, Oklahoma), I have changed the opening sentence to say an historic as I believe this is grammatically correct. Would it be a historic in the US or is it the same as UK English in this sense? Thanks, Rubbish computer 17:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- The American usage is "a historic" whatever. I am familiar with the usage "an historic", but not in the United States, so I assume it is British (rather than one of the other less common regional varieties of English). Since the church is in the United States, the article should be in American English unless a special exception applies. As a result, I think that your edit was good-faith but incorrect. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I did this on one other article and have reverted that edit. Rubbish computer 18:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- I for one routinely use "An historic" and i have never lived anywhere other than the United States. I don't think this is a clearcut Us/UK difference. DES (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would say "A historic" and I'm British- I think either is acceptable, and doesn't necessarily depend on where you are. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- It seems most people agree that "a historic" is the proper usage. See: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/a-versus-an and http://www.theslot.com/a-an.html Abierma3 (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would say "A historic" and I'm British- I think either is acceptable, and doesn't necessarily depend on where you are. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- I for one routinely use "An historic" and i have never lived anywhere other than the United States. I don't think this is a clearcut Us/UK difference. DES (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Italic Titles
I have noticed that some titles of Wikipedia pages are in italics. Most of them have a secondary description inside parentheses___(). Why this is done and how? I don't remember which ones but I am sure i have seen 10 such pages. How did they create the main heading in italics? Mostly redirects in watchlist appear like that.Cosmic Emperor 16:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's done by placing the template {{italic title}} at the top of the page, which will italicize the title up to the first parenthesis (since words within parentheses are normally used to disambiguate pages on Wikipedia). The Manual of Style describes when article titles should be italicized. Cheers. Kolbasz (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
How do I improve my article?
It says that the article Mariel Pamintuan has many issues. I wanna solve those issues. How do I do it? I've done everything that is said to be done to resolve the issues. Can you help me improve it? Here's what's written in the issues bar..
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject. (June 2015) This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2015) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (June 2015)
Can you please check the article Mariel Pamintuan and help me improve it? Please and thank you! :)
MarielLovies (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- The article in question is Mariel Pamintuan. Its principal editors have been User:Mariel Pamintuan and you, User:MarielLovies. Are you, User:MarielLovies, also Mariel Pamintuan? If not, why do you say that you have done everything that you can to resolve the issues? If you are Mariel Pamintuan, then there are two very big problems. First, the article is an autobiography, which is one of the more serious forms of conflict of interest. Second, if you are Mariel Pamintuam, then you are using two accounts, which violates the policy on multiple accounts. If you are not Mariel Pamintuan, then you can improve the article by addressing the identified issues, by providing more citations, including information as to why she is notable in the peculiar Wikipedia sense, and by providing third-party input to an article that was originally an autobiography. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, MarielLovies. The first four sentences of the "Career" section of Mariel Pamintuan are unreferenced. This is not acceptable, particularly in a BLP article, and they should be removed unless reliable published sources are cited. The first sentence is imprecise: what is "a very young age"? The fourth sentence contains the phrase "was known for" - this phrase should never appear in a Wikipedia article unless it cites a reliable independent source which says that the subject was known for whatever it is.
- These are just a couple of major points I have noticed: they are not exhaustive. --ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Also, it's not your article, it's an article that you created, per WP:OWN. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
help submitting an article
Hi there This is my first time creating a page on Wikipedia and I am wondering if someone can help me submit my content? I would really appreciate some help/guidance thanks EmesC (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- @EmesC: Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! I see that User:Wardah786 left a comment on your talk page. Is that also your account? You should know that Wikipedia does not allow it's users to have more than one user account except in some rare circumstances (see: WP:SOCKPUPPETRY). If you are new to writing articles, I strongly recommend you to carefully read this: WP:My first article. Feel free to ask me anything you want to know on my talk page. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Listing the Christian Arts Museum of Ft. Worth on Wikipedia
Museums in Fort Worth are listed on your web site, The above referenced museum is in the cultural district of Ft. Worth, but is not listed as a museum to visit. How do we get a listing? Thank you, Ann G 204.16.80.30 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
How to differentiate sectioning of notes and references for an wiki article
I tried to do this on the Solapur but couldn't Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- HelloDongar Kathorekar, and welcome to the Teahouse. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: groups. DES (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hey Dongar Kathorekar. Sometimes it may be hard to decide what to do when the help pages provide many possibilities. Let me just suggest one I think can be relatively easily implemented here with specific instructions.
- Go to the place in the article where the ==Notes and references== section header is, and make it into two sections, with Notes first and References after (make sure the Reference section retains the {{reflist}} template);
- Add underneath the Notes section header this template: {{Notelist}}
- For all the citations to sources you are using, that are placed with <ref>...</ref> tags, you need do nothing.
- For all the places you have used <ref>...</ref> for a note, change it as follows:
- i) Replace the opening <ref> tag with {{efn| (that's two opening curly braces {{, followed by efn which stands for explanatory foot note, followed by a pipe symbol, located on most keyboards above the return/enter key).
- ii) Replace the closing </ref> tag with }} and you're done; that note should now appear in the notes section,
- but to give a more concrete example to avoid confusion:
- iii) <ref>Note text...blah blah blah.</ref> becomes {{efn|Note text...blah blah blah.}}.
- Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you dear Fuhghettaboutit buddy for your assistance Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Image Uploading problem
I am trying to upload an JPG image to wikipedia page. But it is not getting uploaded. In edit coloumn, there is an option embedded file on top, from there I have given name to the file and again by clicking on the file I have uploaded image. Finally it is not displaying on Page.
So helop me on this regard11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Srinivas sunkara (talk)
- Hello, Srinivas sunkara. You have succeeded in uploading File:Vaddi Veerabhadra Rao.jpeg: the reason it did not display on the page Narendrapuram when you tried to add it is that you did not give the entire filename: you omitted the '.jpeg', but that is part of the file name.
- However, I must tell you that the image will be deleted in a few days unless you give satisfactory copyright information: if you are the copyright holder you must say so, and explicitly license it under a suitable creative commons licence. If you are not the copyright holder, you must get the copyright holder to follow the procedure in donating copyright materials.
- I must also tell you that the article Narendrapuram, having not one single reference, is liable to be deleted at any time. Adding references to reliable published sources is far more important and valuable than sticking a photo of somebody who happens to come from there. Please see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Creating an article/ page of an organization which has been deleted earlier by Wikipedia
I want to create a page for an initiative which was earlier deleted by Wikipedia. Now the Organization and the initiative has got enough of other coverage in news as well and hence I want to create a page again. Please guide me how can I go about the same. Dhwani.14 (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Dhwani.14. I suggest you start by reading your first article, paying especial attention to the sections on notability. Then if you decide to go ahead, use the article wizard, which will let you create it in Draft space (where it will probably not get deleted unless it is a copyright violation). Once you think it is ready, you can submit it for review. --11:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Dhwani.14 and welcome to the Teahouse. The comment above is correct. You might also want to read this summary of our guidelines for articles. Please be sure to include enough references from independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Please be sure that the draft you write is neutral in tone and content. Do NOT copy text from the organization's web site, except possibly for short quotes marked as such and clearly attributed to their source, even if you have been given permission by the organization. Such text is very unlikely to have a neutral tone or be suitable, and Wikipedia requires a full release under a free license, wich is more than just permission for you to use the content. Happy editing. DES (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
adding better quality info to an article which is currently very light
Hi there I've got some useful info on university private presses in New Zealand I'd like to add to this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_press but the article is pretty skimpy and I haven't got time to improve it overall! Is it a good idea to add the info I have cos it's helpful, when it might look quite out of synch with the rest of the article? thanks! Elucidata (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Elucidata. I am not sure about terminology in New Zealand, but here in the United States, there is a clear distinction between a Private press and a University press. I suggest that you might start by writing individual articles about specific notable university presses in New Zealand that now lack articles, and perhaps create a list of such presses and a category for them. Broad articles should have a worldwide emphasis, and giving undue weight to material pertaining to one specific country is not advisable. That being said, I admit that U.S. editors are sometimes prone to do so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Adding organization details
How can I add an organization details and contributions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MD Rashadul Islam Alif (talk • contribs) 20:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, MD Rashadul Islam Alif. I thought at first that you were asking how to put an "infobox" in an article. But looking at your user talk page, it appears that you have been trying to create an article about WFNI, an organisation of which you are the CEO. Wikipedia discourages anybody from writing articles about subjects they are connected with, as their conflict of interest is likely to make it hard for them to write in the appropriate neutral tone. But if you do want to go ahead, you need to read your first article, and I would strongly suggest you use the article wizard.
- It is important to understand that every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be individually cited to a reliable published source - and most of it to sources unconnected with the subject. My advice if you want to write an article on WFNI is to begin by forgetting everything you know about the organisation, and find independent writing about it - articles in major newspapers or magazines, or books from reputable publishers (note that an article which is clearly mostly based on a press release from WFNI is not acceptable for this purpose, because it is not an independent piece of writing about it). If you cannot find such sources, then give up: by definition, the organisation is not currently notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) and an article will not be accepted however it is written.
- If you can find a few such sources, then you can start writing an article entirely based on what they say. If an independent source talks about the "contributions" of the organisation, then the article can quote the source about them. If it doen't, then the article should not even mention the word "contributions".
- If you can write a substantial draft article on this basis, then you can add some uncontroversial factual information about it from its own published sources, such as its website: things like places and dates. They still need to be cited to a published source, however. --ColinFine (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
What are the basics of Wikipedia editing?
Sorry, but I'm a complete noob at Wikipedia. What are the basics of Wikipedia editing? How do I create a page on a new subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxRockets (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- FoxRockets, hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I took the liberty of moving your question to the top where it will be more easily seen. To learn about creating articles, read Wikipedia:Your first article. But you don't want to do that. Read about editing, try editing existing articles, and get used to the way we do things, because it's very hard for a newcomer to create an article that will be accepted.
- Once you feel ready to start an article, the most important things to remember are making sure the topic you want to write about is notable, that most facts added to articles are supported by independent reliable sources that cover the topic in detail, and that you write with a neutral point of view. Primary sources or sources that don't cover the topic in detail can be used for non-controversial information once notability has been established. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, Welcome to Wikipedia. You can create an article here: WP:AFC, Please make sure to source it WP:NOTE, make sure it is neutral WP:NPV, Have fun, write a great article, ask questions as you go. Don't worry, you can't break Wikipedia, we can fix everything you do lol I saw that somewhere. Jadeslair (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- off topic Note that for most pages, new comments go at the bottom. TeaHouse is the oddball. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
POV fork
The page Gwangju Democratization Movement appears to be Gwangju Uprising, from a different point of view, the former having been created from a redirect to the latter. What should be done about this? Rubbish computer 15:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, I proposed a merge. There may be some POV issues when that happens. I can help with that if people agree that it should be merged. Jadeslair (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- This might be more complicated, there were proposed moves before. I just started looking at the talk pages. Just let me know how I can help. Jadeslair (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- It was moved before. The talk page for Gwangju Democratization Movement is a redirect. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gwangju_Democratization_Movement&redirect=no Jadeslair (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- The two are not the same article, although they look almost the same. I haven't looked at the history, but I would guess that someone did a copy-and-paste as a POV fork, just as the OP suggests, or maybe by a new editor who thought that copy-and-paste is the way to give an article two titles. Copy-and-paste article creation in Wikipedia is never (or maybe almost never) allowed, but is commonly done by new editors who don't understand redirects, and occasionally by more experienced editors who want to create POV forks. There isn't currently a redirect. If the merge is approved, and it should be, one of the two titles will redirect to the other. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've provided copyright attribution for the cut and paste fork.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- The two are not the same article, although they look almost the same. I haven't looked at the history, but I would guess that someone did a copy-and-paste as a POV fork, just as the OP suggests, or maybe by a new editor who thought that copy-and-paste is the way to give an article two titles. Copy-and-paste article creation in Wikipedia is never (or maybe almost never) allowed, but is commonly done by new editors who don't understand redirects, and occasionally by more experienced editors who want to create POV forks. There isn't currently a redirect. If the merge is approved, and it should be, one of the two titles will redirect to the other. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Please help me how can I write an article about a book and a new author ?
ConstantinVacheron (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, well you can start out by using the infobox for books. Template:Infobox_book it looks like you are an author, maybe even the author of the book. See WP:COI. If that is the case, I recommend you post on my talk page and ask for me to create one for you. I will do that if you do your research first. Is it notable, should be your start. WP:NOTE. If you are not the author then you can start with the articles for creation wizard. Wikipedia:Article_wizard Since you say "new author", the book may not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Jadeslair (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, ConstantinVacheron; probably, you don't. Wikipedia articles should be written almost entirely based on what people unconnected with the subject have published in reliable places such as major newspapers and magazines. If there has not yet been anything substantial written about the book or the author by independent people, then it is impossible at present to write an acceptable article, and you shouldn't try: that is really what the "notability" criterion mentioned by Jadeslair means. --ColinFine (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Reviewing new pages
Hi, I just reviewed a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_J._Puig I added many tags but more than likely it is Wiki Spam. I know I can just tag it for speedy deletion(most likely) but I also know that we should encourage new users. If you take a look at it would you say delete? or give them a chance to clean it up? Just looking for some thoughtful responses so I can contribute but not harm Wikipedia. Jadeslair (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, looks like they were blocked for undisclosed paid editing (being paid to create/edit Wikipedia articles, but not disclosing it on Wikipedia)- this doesn't necessarily mean their articles are terrible, although 95% of the time they are. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- You did well in trying to bolster a new user, but Mr. Puig is simply not WP:Notable. My opinion, and I've BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, looks like they were blocked for undisclosed paid editing (being paid to create/edit Wikipedia articles, but not disclosing it on Wikipedia)- this doesn't necessarily mean their articles are terrible, although 95% of the time they are. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
My Wikipedia article
Someone has been editing my Wikipedia article and making changes and omissions that are damaging to me. When I tried to re-edit, I discovered that my page had been locked.
I corresponded at length via email with a volunteer but he was, in the end, unable to help me restore my page to what is truthful. What is my next step?
Thank you,
Robin Green (the TV writer/producer of the Soprans and Blue Bloods) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E8A6:CE00:3D66:48F:8AEF:1171 (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Robinloisgreen (I assume this is you, editing while not logged in). Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anybody can edit, and it is not your article (still less is it your "profile"), it is Wikipedia's article about you, which should contain only material derived directly from published reliable sources, but is not dependent in any way on your approval. Because of your conflict of interest, you are strongly discouraged from editing Robin Green. We are concerned that articles (especially articles about living people) are accurate, according to reliable published sources. I see that some of your edits have been to remove uncited information, and that ought to be all right: I think Logical Fuzz and Joseph2302 were wrong to revert your removal of several claims already marked as 'citation needed': I suspect that they did so because they were also reverting your unsourced additions.
- What you should do is make suggestions for changes to the article with citations to independent published reliable sources on its talk page, so that an uninvolved editor may make the changes. --ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- @ColinFine:, if you check the history, I reverted their unsourced edits, and then removed all the unsourced content, see reversion and removal- I removed their unsourced claims, and the rest of the article's unsourced claims too. Please explain how removing all the BLP violations was wrong?
- Also, User:Robinloisgreen got blocked as an impersonation account by @Jakec:, with a message about the standard procedure for confirming their identity. Therefore, using an IP is block evasion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies, Joseph2302 - I missed the following edit removing those items which you had just restored. --ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Joseph2302 the block was solely because User:Robinloisgreen appeared to represent herself as a specific well-known person, without having provided clear evidence of this. Since anyone can make such a claim, to protact that person the account was blocked pending such evidence. But the purported identification was the only reason for the block. Therefoe editing under an IP address, or a new name that doesn't imply that identification, is not block evasion, IMO. DES (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies, Joseph2302 - I missed the following edit removing those items which you had just restored. --ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Couple of questions regarding the captioned WikipediA page, they are:
(1) OCS has been located at Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island since 2007.- I'm not sure the above statement is entirely accurate since I was an Officer Candidate at the above location in 1965. And;
(2) If my memory serves Bob Kerrey, a Medal of Honor winner and US Senator was an Officer Candidate at Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island in 1966 or 1967. I would think he should be listed as a notable alum.
vern24.8.195.79 (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, vern. I have removed the '>' at the beginning of the lines of your comment, as they were making it hard to read. If you have suggestions for improvement to a Wikipedia article, the best place to make them is on that article's talk page - in this case Talk:Officer Candidate School (United States Navy). Looking further down the article, it says that the school was merged from two other schools, one of which was at Newport. However, it is lacking in dates, and (more seriously) the article is completely lacking in references, and is therefore in a sense completely worthless (because no reader has any way to check whether anything in it is correct). If you can add some detail to the history (or any part of the article) with citations to published references, you will improve the article immeasurably. But personal recollections are not acceptable as sources, because, again, a reader has no way to check them.
- On the subject of Bob Kerrey, he is indeed notable enough for there to be a Wikipedia article about him, and therefore he could appear in the list of notable alumni - if there is a published reference to show that he is one. Again, personal recollections are not enough. (I looked at the article about him, but it does not even mention OCS, let alone have a reference for his attendance). --ColinFine (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Can I get a second opinion on some recent edits?
Hi there,
I made a small contribution to a page some months back and put the page on my watchlist.
I noticed that there has been a radical overhaul of the page, and I don't really know what to do.
The page is on a living person: Mark Pollock.
The most recent edits are genuinely good faith edits, and display an intimate knowledge of the subject (the recent editor introduces an event called the Run in the Dark, which was not previously referenced and is certainly worthy of inclusion, and also is able to provide a name for the "bionic" robotic legs that a subsequent Google search shows to be correct). So these recent edits are not vandalism or anything like that.
However, the overhaul removes all citations and references and deletes a vast amount of information.
I have heard of a debate on Wiki between "deletionist" and "inclusionist" points of view.
Is this what I am seeing here? Am I merely uncomfortable because I have some inner "inclusionist" tendencies and this editor has a "deletionist" world view?
I'd appreciate any advice.
Paul Dublin (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Paul all-though they may have added a couple of new valid points the removal of that amount of material without even an edit comment is still tantamount to vandalism. So yes it should be reverted... and it has been reverted already. It was also a copyright violation from http://www.oneyoungworld.com/counsellors/mark-pollock. If you think that the extra items on Run in the Dark etc are valid then I should suggest added them back (in a non copy vio way). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Notabilty issue
Hello, An article I am working on got a response from an editor concerning notabilty. When comparing to other existing articles, can not see the difference between the sources' notability. That is, can not understand why some sources are taken as notable while others don't. Article in progress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omer_Dror Article in comparision:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yon_Tumarkin
Appreciate your assistance and time
Mironit
Mironit9 (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello
- I have removed empty spaces, as the lines were overflowing
- to the content box
- some senior editor will answer your question
- best regards
- Aftab Banoori (Talk) 09:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello
- Hi Mironit9, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've had a look at your draft. One of the problems is that your references were not formatted in a way to allow the reviewers to see what the sources actually were, and you had way too many repetitive sources from non-notable publications which caused further confusion. I've chosen the most relevant and useful sources and used them to reference the article properly. A lot of the most useful sources are in Hebrew, which I have to "read" via Google translation, but they are from reliable and notable Israeli media, e.g. Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Maariv, etc. They will need careful reading by a fluent Hebrew speaker to ensure that they verify all of the biographical details in the article, especially his birth name, his family's emigration to Israel, the schools he attended etc. This is required by Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. I'll leave some further comments on your draft which may be of help to future reviewers. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Mironit9. You can use the
|trans-title=
parameter of the cite templates to provide an english translation of the titel of the article being cited, and the|quote=
parameter to provide a translation of the relevant quote that supports the staement cied. These would help readers who do not speak/read Hebrew. DES (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Does the 3rr policy still count if you are on a page that is being heavily vandalized
I have come across a page that seems to be a target for vandals, Would I be violating the 3rr rule for trying to protect a page? Jadeslair (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- nevermind, I just found the search box. I see this now Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_170#Should_you_keep_reverting_obvious_undisputable_vandals.3F Jadeslair (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
How to properly cite an "In fiction" section?
Hi! I have a question for y'all: The "In fiction" section of article Omega Point has been entirely removed a few times by an editor for being unsourced. I have reverted each time and tagged with {{Unreferenced section}} instead. However, I am unsure how to approach citing this section because it is a somewhat obscure theological topic in that I am having a difficult time findings secondary references on popular culture appearances of the Omega Point. Do I have to go through each example as a primary source and cite the specific example where the Omega Point or similar concept appears? Would this be an acceptable (reliable) tertiary source for several of the examples: http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/omega_point ? I am aware of the page Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, but it is not very specific except that there must be reliable sources. Could anyone give me some more specific guidance on how to cite this section or provide an example of a similar "In fiction" section that is well cited? Abierma3 (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Abierma3. It is really quite simple. Every single listing in the "In fiction" section of the Omega Point article must cite a reliable source which connects that work of fiction to the theological concept in a substantive way. If such sources are lacking for any given item on that list, then that item should be removed immediately, and not restored until such a reliable source is cited. Assuming that the source probably exists in the linked article is insufficient. Of course, you can read the linked article looking for such sources, and if you find one and read it yourself, you can add to the Omega Point article. Otherwise, eliminate them all. Verifiability is a core content policy, and we do not allow any form of original research. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to me that The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is a reliable source for this topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes it should be, Cullen, but the work itself is a primary source for its content. A simple page number reference to where the concept is discussed in the book should be sufficient. Note also that it is not in general true that every listing in such an article must have an inline citation. Only direct quotes and controversial or negative statements in a BLP are absolutely required to have citations. Other statements must have citations if they are challenged in good faith (or are likely to be challenged), but it is not well thought of to challenge a fact that one does not actually doubt. See WP:PROVEIT. (@Abierma3:) DES (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to me that The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is a reliable source for this topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
deleting wiki acct
how to delete my wikipedia account? Gladys Haiti Alley (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- You cannot delete it. You can just stop editing and not use your account any more. You can also read WP:VANISH and see if it applies to what you want to do. RudolfRed (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your reply. I wonder if I just deleted my content whether that would render my page blank? Or would wikipedia restore the content? Gladys Haiti Alley (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Gladys Haiti Alley. You can blank your own user page and/or your user talk page if you wish, or you can add a "retired" banner if you want. But you cannot delete any useful encyclopedia article content that you have created. You donated that irrevocably. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your reply, Cullen328. It's just the answer I needed because I only wanted to blank my user page and user talk page, since my article was deleted or moved to my user page. Thanks, again. Gladys Haiti Alley (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Gladys Haiti Alley: You can also request your userpage to be deleted by placing
{{Db-u1}}
at the top of it, if you'd like to rid of it completely (since right now, the page's history is still accessible). Note that you can't request that your user talk page be deleted. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
My additions are causing me to be threatened with removal as an editor
Howard Loring uses real people in his time travel novels, but after adding references to these people's Wikki pages, following the form already used in 'depictions in literature,' etc. I've been threatened with this message: "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Clara Schumann, Albert Einstien and other articles, you may be blocked from editing." What did I do wrong?Howard bellew (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Howard bellew:Most of your edits seem to be adding the same book- see [5], [6], [7]. Dare I ask, is this your book? Repeatedly adding the same links to pages can be classed as linkspamming. If this is your book, then stop adding links to it on Wikipedia, if it isn't your book, then consider adding other reliable sources to articles as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Template:Howard bellew. The self-published books in question are not notable, and neither is the author. In my opinion, adding links of this kind is spamming, and I recommend that you stop. I realize that you may not have known that such links are unwelcome on Wikipedia, but now you do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Howard Loring has two books out using real people and I added references on the first one first. I wish to add the second book as well but received the above message first. People in other books are listed in this exact way. What did I do wrong?Howard bellew (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Fine. I bought his books on Amazon but I guess they are not real books. I love History but I guess like minded people don't need to know about his references to Historical figures either. Thanks Cullen
Howard bellew (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Howard bellew (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Howard bellew: I'm sure that they are real books, The issue is this: major historiacl figures like Clara Schumann and Albert Einstien will be mentoned in dozens, perhaps hundreds of works of historical fiction, and often science fction and alternate history, and perhaps other genres as well. We can't possibly mention all of those in the articles, it would overwhelm them. So we either restrict such lists to a few of the very most significant, or omit a "dipictions in lterature" section altogether. If a b ook is not merely notable but quite influential, then perhaps it should be so mentioend. If you think the books by Howard Loring fit that mdescriptuion, then make a case on the talk pages of the article for including mentions. If the books are notable, particualrly if they pass our notability guideline for books, then an article about the books could be created, where it eould be appropraite to discuss the historical figues used. In general on Wikipedia, if you try to do something and someone else undoes it, and especailly if this happens twice, don't try to do it again without discussing the matter first, and obtaining consensus. See Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. I hope that makes things a bit clearer. DES (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, this sounds plausible but it just doesn't apply as other citations are present and that's why I contributed to each of them in the same form. No problem, just thought Wikki was an encyclopedia and this seemed relevant, my mistake.99.5.125.4 (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, this seems plausible but it just doesn't apply given other's works are listed, and that's why I made my citations in the same form used for each article. My mistake was in thinking Wikki was an encyclopedia as opposed to a sorta encyclopedia that made arbitrary calls that do not apply to all editors. I understand now, thanks; I didn't mean to clog up your article, and I certanly have no control over how many times major historical figures have been used in literature.99.5.125.4 (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, not trying to pile on, I incorrectly thought my response wasn't posted so I posted another. Again, my mistake.99.5.125.4 (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- The existence of other inappropriate references in an article is not an excuse to add more. The references to a non notable book do not belong there. We know you cannot control everyone who mentions these people but that does not mean it becomes a free for all. noq (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, what other entries on these articles do you think are comparable? noq (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Howard bellew: Many people have been mentioned in thousands or works of all kinds so of course Wikipedia often has to choose what to include. We prefer notable works, and articles should be about notable subjects. Blue links go to articles, red links don't. Consider Agrippa in popular culture after your edit. All entries have blue links except your own which is red for both book and author. The video game entry is too long but apart from that the other entries sound reasonable to me. But a fictional book few people know by an author few people have heard about does not belong in an article where lots of more notable works could be included. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I now understand your position and see that I misunderstood yours: I thought your mandate was to hold pertinent information relevant to your articles. I believe Howard Loring's works are for he writes Epic Fables, not just Time Travel books. For example, the book I was sighting gives an in-depth view of Roman warfare, Elizabethan politics and the inside world of 19th century Classical Music, it's development and meaning, certainly not the norm for the genre. Another example would be his latest book, also containing real people with current articles, and not the one I was sighting, which can be read backwards as well as forwards, and I would think this is relevant, given the genre.But what do I know? I just thought people interested in such historic figures should know of their use in such a unique fashion. But thanks, I bow to your guidelines.Howard bellew (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Copyright Problem: Hide Page or Resolve Issue?
Hello!
This is probably a relatively straightforward question, but here is my situation: I created a wikipedia page for an economist (Robert F. Wescott). However, the text that I used was sufficiently close enough to text from another website about Wescott (that I own the rights to) that it triggered the CorenSearchBot to flag it as a copyright infringement. Now this page has several tags that identify the page as being potentially a violation of copyright. I am concerned that he might see it before this has been resolved so, a) is there a way to hide my page temporarily or b) is there a way to resolve these issues quickly? Happy to do either, just don't want anyone to see my messy wiki page for him! Many thanks Sgmansbach (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Quick answers: a) No b) Depends on what you mean by 'quickly'; but basically I would also have to quick answer that no, there is no quick way.
- With the above quick answers to clear your mind a bit, the issue is not as simple or as "straightforward" as you may think. An Speedy Deletion tag (SD for short) are meant to express the concerns of a wikipedian about clear and non-negotiable issues of the article that said wikipedian think the article has, and ultimately to draw the attention of an administrator, in order to judge if the article indeed meets the Criteria for Speedy Deletion; if it does, the administrator boldly deletes the article. Any editor can, but most of us prefer to let an administrator remove the tag if the criteria is not met.
- Now, I have done a not so quick review of the articles and, independently of the clear Conflict of Interest issue, it also has other issues, the most important one being about the Notability of the subject, as the article makes no indication about the relevance of its subject. That lack of indication of relevance, by itself, meets the criteria A7 for speedy deletion. Also, please note that even if you add some indication of its importance, the subject of the article can still be considered not notable, and erased after a proposed deletion, or via a deletion discussion
- I see that you have made changes from the original article, the one that was heavily tagged for an SD. I think you are doing a really good job, and I may also do some changes in order to help you avoid the SD.
- One last thing. It is not your article. It is of the community now. It worries me a bit that you said "my article". I understand that you create it, but when you clicked on the Save Page button, you released it to the public. And we all thank you for that --Legion fi (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- It may also help, Sgmansbach to get in the habit of thinking about not as "a page for Wescott" but "an article about Wescott". --ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
photo release template
I'm hoping to find a version of this template that I can send to the copyright holder of a photo, in order for them to fill it out online and return:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates/Consent
Is there such a template? Otherwise, what do you advise as the best way to proceed? Thanks for the help. Sleepy Geek (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello @Sleepy Geek:. The process for providing materials for free use on Wikipedia (and the free use that grants to other people everywhere) is outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Huggle
I've downloaded Huggle how do I enable it TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 20:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- You must be familiar with how to deal with vandalism before using Huggle (Huggle is not intended for new Wikipedia users) and for this reason, you must have rollback permissions on the English Wikipedia. From your edit history you don't appear to be ready yet. Theroadislong (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- @TeaLover1996: Hello again! Roadislong is right that you require the Rollback permission. I seem to remember reading a request from you that was declined, if you return to WP:PERM make sure to just state your past request(s) and explain why you have fixed the issues raised there. Don't try to ignore them, MusikBot will find them anyway. If that is successful, follow the instructions at mw:Manual:Huggle/Installation to get Huggle running and then login like usual to the interface. Good luck! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- EoRdE6 the above is a red link because it is not on Wikipedia. I have seen how to do this but for now the only way I know is click here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Vchimpanzee: Fixed, my bad. Just toss the abbreviation for the Wiki as the prefix (com: for commons, mw: for mediawiki etc etc) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- EoRdE6 the above is a red link because it is not on Wikipedia. I have seen how to do this but for now the only way I know is click here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- @TeaLover1996: Hello again! Roadislong is right that you require the Rollback permission. I seem to remember reading a request from you that was declined, if you return to WP:PERM make sure to just state your past request(s) and explain why you have fixed the issues raised there. Don't try to ignore them, MusikBot will find them anyway. If that is successful, follow the instructions at mw:Manual:Huggle/Installation to get Huggle running and then login like usual to the interface. Good luck! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding political biases in sources, and assessment of reliability
Hi, is there any Wikipedia policy by which the partisan bias of a source ("liberal" or "left-wing", or "conservative" or "right-wing" in the most commonly understood parlance) is considered a factor in assessing its reliability? In particular, are "conservative" sources to be seen as inherently less reliable, or less likely to meet WP's standards, or for this to otherwise be brought into consideration?
If not, is it appropriate, in the context of discussions of the reliability of sources, to bring up the matter of partisan leanings? It seems to me like it might come across as poisoning the well, or otherwise signal to other editors about an attempt to "introduce bias" (read: challenge the bias of existing article sources/content).
(I note here that I've only ever seen such tactics used against "conservative" sources on Wikipedia, but I don't doubt it's possible it's gone the other way, and "liberal" sources absolutely deserve the same protections.)
74.12.93.177 (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sources do not have to be neutral Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources#Reliable_sources_may_be_non-neutral but the wikipedia article needs to be neutral. The last part is not negotiable and a core of Wikipedia's policies. The most important thing as far as sources seems to be its editorial policy. Do they fact check? WP:RS Jadeslair (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Jadeslair, so that's more or less as I expected. My concern is more that I frequently see the bias of conservative sources mentioned in such discussions, and not that of liberal sources; this seems like it would have the net effect over time of instilling a liberal bias in articles, as explicit liberal bias is increasingly perceived as "no bias". This does, however, raise the question of who gets to decide what counts as "centrist".
- But even that isn't really getting at the core of the issue - it's not so much the phrasing of the article that bothers me here (since it can't be that hard, normally, to rephrase a biased take on a subject in an unbiased way). Rather, I've noticed that bias in media is very often expressed in terms of the selection of aspects of a discussion reported on. That is to say, a biased source may choose to omit mention of certain facts completely in order to propagate that bias. If WP editors then reject other sources, including that information, as "biased" (in spite of proper fact-checking), the bias is then propagated into WP articles. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- 74.12.93.177, I know you asked a general question but if you have concerns, you should bring them up on the article talk page and if there is a difference of opinion, ask about neutrality and sources at WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN. It often helps to have an editor who is not involved with editing a specific article offer their opinion on these matters. Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- But even that isn't really getting at the core of the issue - it's not so much the phrasing of the article that bothers me here (since it can't be that hard, normally, to rephrase a biased take on a subject in an unbiased way). Rather, I've noticed that bias in media is very often expressed in terms of the selection of aspects of a discussion reported on. That is to say, a biased source may choose to omit mention of certain facts completely in order to propagate that bias. If WP editors then reject other sources, including that information, as "biased" (in spite of proper fact-checking), the bias is then propagated into WP articles. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Here is my take on that. We take one subject, multiple sources should be used for that subject from both sides so that as many facts as possible are included. (if possible) Now on the "who gets to decide" question. That answer may not be so pretty. You are encouraged to be bold and edit an article putting as much accurate information as possible. Sometimes it is hard for an editor to see their own bias. So if your edits get reverted then you may need to go to the talk page and discuss the topic. Reach a consensus then edit again. After that, you may still run into some trouble, remain calm and be polite but discuss it, there are many avenues for discussion, here are some pages that may help you figure out how to navigate the process. Don't edit war: Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule, don't resort to sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts, seek consensus: Wikipedia:Consensus, Dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Jadeslair (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Of course, what could really bake the OP's noodle is the fact that WP is perceived by the centre-right as having an inherent liberal bias, which makes it pointless, in their eyes, to even try and counter. Hence there is a continuous tendential decline the number of editors willing to try to counter this. Thus making he bias even more inherent. Castrovalva (M. C. Escher)!!!
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- This may be the case, I sometimes edit based on my news feeds so I bet what I edit is probably based on my own selective news feed. Of course when each side constantly hears or sees in the comments that a site is biased, ie Fox is not a credible source or NYT leans left, then that will transfer here. If they see that enough times they probably believe it. Also an editor edits a few pages that are stalked by the same person who reverts their edits then that person will probably leave. Thinking they are an authority on the subject, when in fact they may just be a troll. Jadeslair (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Of course, what could really bake the OP's noodle is the fact that WP is perceived by the centre-right as having an inherent liberal bias, which makes it pointless, in their eyes, to even try and counter. Hence there is a continuous tendential decline the number of editors willing to try to counter this. Thus making he bias even more inherent. Castrovalva (M. C. Escher)!!!
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: FWIW, I am very much a "liberal" by any normal understanding of the word. I even used to share in the "reality has a liberal bias" joke that was popular during the Bush years (and I'm not even American). But more recently I've started to question many of my assumptions about media bias, thanks in part to the work of Jonathan Haidt and exposure to the filter bubble theory. I was especially concerned recently when I saw an infographic regarding the trust placed in various news sources in the US, sorted by the political affiliation of viewers, and it seemed like there was a clear attempt to represent that conservative sources are (a) generally less trusted overall, (b) greatly outnumbered anyway; and that conservatives are generally less willing to put their trust in the media than liberals. And FWIW, it often feels like WaPo and NYT are treated as the gold standard of reliability around here, ranking even above WSJ and the BBC.
- @Jadeslair: Well, per the survey (journalism.org itself appears to be pretty reliable FWIW), self-identified "liberals" and "conservatives" in the US seem to agree consistently that NYT leans left. Unless you suppose there are other good reasons for political positions to correlate with media trust? (Not a rhetorical question, actually; a good answer seems like it would be very interesting.) 74.12.93.177 (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am sure your survey is correct, I just meant that as an example. When it comes to media trust. I don't trust any of them. I fact check when ever possible and many times go to the site that would be opposite of it for another "opinion". When it comes to politics, if it relates, I pull up the voting record, I will also try to find a video of a quote. I see the media grab portions of quotes all the time and use them. It is just what they do, whatever fits the story they are trying to portray. I understand that they all pretty much lean one way or another and never have a problem with that. I just factor it in. Jadeslair (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Multiple deletion nominations
Hi, there's currently a few articles for albums compiled of songs performed on the TV show Glee that don't meet notability guidelines or pass WP:NALBUMS, so I've decided to put them up for deletion. While I've nominated articles for deletion before, I've never done more than one on a singular subject at a time. Would I have to nominate each article for deletion individually, while giving the same reasons each time, and asking people to contribute to 4/5 deletion discussions, or is there a way to nominate multiple articles at once? Thanks, Azealia911 talk 14:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Azealia911. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thankyou! You guys always have the answers, you're a real help to the community!
Azealia911 talk 14:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- However, Azealia911 do read the cautions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion linked above. Unless the pages are pretty closely related, and it is quite likely that anyone with an opnion on one will ahve the same view on all of them, doing a joint nom may be a mistake. DES (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thankyou! You guys always have the answers, you're a real help to the community!
Adding photos and publishing an article
I just created an article that I will like to post, I also have a photo that I will like to add, how can I achieve this. Omogbe (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Standard photo advice follows:
- If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
- If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add
[[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]]
to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacingFile name.jpg
with the actual file name of the image, andCaption text
with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.Template:Z40--ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Omogbe hello and welcome to The Teahouse. A simple way to describe the advice given above is that if you did not take the photo with your own camera yourself, it might not be appropriate for you to upload it and use it. If you did take the photo or know the person or company who did (and who holds the copyright may not be the person with the camera), you (or whoever took the photo) can give permission for the photo to be used for any purpose, including commercial purposes, without specific permission being asked, as long as attribution is given.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Question?
I know this may seem a daft question but what is the integrity of wikipedia? TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 12:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- @TeaLover1996: I'm not sure what kind of answer you have in mind but see integrity or wiktionary:integrity for the general meaning of the word. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think he wants to know how easy it is for the community to spot a sock...?
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- TeaLover1996 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The way I interpret your question is that you want to know how reliable the information is. The information is as reliable as the sources used, and the people who added the information. If numerous reliable independent sources can be found under "References" or some similar heading or headings at the end of the article, the article has a better chance of being reliable. We are all volunteers and none of us know who is really an expert in a field or whether the people adding information know what they are doing. At the same time, there are many of us watching articles and recent changes for obvious vandalism or for people not following guidelines or policies and adding informartion that appears questionable. With most articles, you can be reasonably certain people are looking for additions they believe should not have been made and removing them if something is wrong or better information is needed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think he wants to know how easy it is for the community to spot a sock...?
Can I open an article for my father?
Hello all,
My father is a brain surgeon. Although he is not internationally renown, he has a bit of reputation here in Turkey. At least I want to open a page that is in Turkish. Since I am new to editing/writing articles here I wanted to get some advice.
Best, elasolova
Elasolova (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Elasolova: If you want to write an article in Turkish, you would need to do at Turkish Wikipedia, English Wikipedia only accepts articles in English. Every Wikipedia has it own guidelines, so I'll mention the ones for English Wikipedia.
- The main thing is whether there is significant, independent coverage about him in reliable sources (books, newspaper articles, journals, web content)- if there isn't then he won't pass WP:GNG. If you think he does, then be aware that you have a conflict of interest, and so I would strongly advise reading WP:COI, and also Wikipedia:Your first article for guidance on how to write articles well. After that, if you want to create an article, I would advise using Wikipedia:Article Wizard. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that the sources you use don't have to be in English, so if there's lots of sources in Turkish about him, you can use those on here, as long as you write the article in English. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Protection
Do you have to be an admin to add a protection padlock to the top of the page? TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 09:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- @TeaLover1996: You have to be an admin to actually protect a page. Adding a protection template is an independent action which can be done by anyone able to edit the page but it should only be done for pages which really are protected. The template may detect if the page is not protected and omit to display anything in that case. If you want a page to be protected then see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead after a tag placed on Draft article ?
Hi, I am creating my second article. I have created a Draft version first, a user placed a comment of notability when page had only 6-7 lines. Now that I have improved and added the content to the article with many references from published articles. How to know that whether the improved article is in compliance to the guidelines or where I am going wrong ? article is Draft:Soulflower ... if you could show direction. Thanks a lot!!!Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Vivek.bekhabar, welcome to the Teahouse. The comment added to Draft:Soulflower on 3 June was not the actual review. "general notability or WP:CORP" in the comment refers to Wikipedia:Notability and WP:CORP. It appears that most references either don't mention Soulflower or only mention the gallery and not the company. The page is still waiting to be reviewed and the reviewer will examine the version at the time of the review. You can continue to work on it and if it's declined then it will probably be possible to make changes and try to submit it again. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Thank you so much for your inputs. I will recheck the references vis-a-vis content. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Page view statistics
On the Main Page and elsewhere, page view statistics, which were being updated daily, have stopped at 10 June. Does anyone know why? Rubbish computer 16:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Inserting pictures and Hostbot operator
Hello i am a new member of wikipedia, and i would like to know how i can insert images on Wikipedia. and By the way, who is operating hostbotChukwuemeka Chisom Ezeilo (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Chukwuemeka Chisom Ezeilo, and welcome to the Teahouse. I operate HostBot :) You can insert a small image into a Wikipedia article by using the following syntax: [[File:Title_of_image.jpg|thumb|Caption for the image]]. See the example in my sandbox. You can also read the picture tutorial for more detailed information. Cheers, - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 00:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Chukwuemeka Chisom Ezeilo more information can be found at #Adding photos and publishing an article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Preventing Drafts from Appearing in Search Engine Results?
Hello, I would like to prevent user space drafts from appearing in search engine results. I've placed the noindex template at the top of my drafts but the text still appears in search engine results. Perhaps I added it later, after the search engine combed for pages? This is the right template to use for this purpose, correct? Thank you for your thoughts. Kekki1978 (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Kekki1978, welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are refering to User:Kekki1978/Draft3:Rick Shutter. That includes both {{noindex}}, and {{userspace draft}}. Both of these should add the
__NOINDEX__
"magic word" whcih instructs search engines not to index the page. - The documentation for {{noindex}} says: "Note: major search engines should respect the NOINDEX tag, but it may take days or even weeks for content already indexed to be removed from them." So it seems to me that you ahve done as much as you could to this end. See also Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. DES (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Which page, search engine and search is this about? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter: I periodically use Duckduckgo and Google to see what they yield for my username. I do see pages which currently contain the noindex tag but I assume the tags were added after the pages were already indexed. At this time, I don't have a sense of how much time passed between creating pages, adding the tags, and seeing the results in searches, and whether there's a difference between the two search engines I've used. That would be interesting to see. Kekki1978 (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Kekki1978: Some of your userspace pages have a template with noindex, some don't, and some pages have been deleted. If Google gives access to the version they cached then they say when it was cached. DuckDuckGo doesn't appear to give access to the cached version or say the time but specific searches may reveal when they cached a page. I cannot say something more specific without knowing which pages it is about. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you able to help? I really don't understand,
I even showed what I had written to a publisher and a professional editor, who told me he thought the article was very well written and not at all reading as an advertisement–so I need some help in understanding how to get this very deserving organization a place on Wikipedia. Can you help? Thank you most kindly. Draft: Global Scribes Inc ScribesoftheWorld (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello ScribesoftheWorld and welcome to the teahouse. I am sorry you have forund the process of drafting a Wikipedia article frustrating. I don't know what you told the "professional editor", or what sort of audience he had in mind. For an organizational brochure Draft:Global Scribes Inc might be very well written. But not for Wikipedia. We need neutral test, such as might be found in a refernce work about the organization. look at some of our existing articles about organizations, for example International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or Free Association of German Trade Unions. The draft currently includes such test as:
- " Global Scribes facilitates healthy, culturally-enriching relationships between young people within an environment free from politics, religion, causes, and socio-demographic segregation. The unique program takes the participant on global journeys through the written word, visual arts, dynamic interaction, and consistent interplay across multiple virtual platforms–Fun, Education, Focused Passion and Play Intertwined."
- Who says it is unique?
- This sounds like a mission statement from the organization, not a neutral description.
- "global scribes submit creative works ... reflecting their personal passions, culture and the life they lead."
- Terms like "persoanl passions" convey a value judgement in Wikipedia's voice, which is not acceptable. Any opniosn must be those of a named and cired entity outsie of Wikipedia
- Furthering the goal of global collaboration, global scribes learn Broadcast Journalism by actively participating in the process ...
- Who says this furtheres that goal?
- Again the tone here is one of praise and advocacy, not meutral description.
- " Global Scribes facilitates healthy, culturally-enriching relationships between young people within an environment free from politics, religion, causes, and socio-demographic segregation. The unique program takes the participant on global journeys through the written word, visual arts, dynamic interaction, and consistent interplay across multiple virtual platforms–Fun, Education, Focused Passion and Play Intertwined."
- I woul be happy to discuss this furthe with you on your talk page, or mine, or at Draft talk:Global Scribes Inc. DES (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, David! Okay, Will give it another go–and ask for your feedback. (no, the publisher knew this was for Wikipedia) –and you are right I did that that one statement from a document from them. Okay. I'll try again. thank you SO much for pointing out specifics– Kind regardsScribesoftheWorld (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Many people fail to grok that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and would fail to judge content on that specific basis. Thinking of Wikipedia as a page on the interwebs, as many people do, would give a skewed perspective of what is "appropriate". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you TRPoD!ScribesoftheWorld (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Entries in "Monmouth College Alumni" are not all arranged by their last name
I noticed when you go to the Category:Monmouth College alumni, some alumni are arranged by their last name but some by their first name. It should all be by last name. Can we fix this? and how?Rami.shareef (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Rami.shareef and welcome to the Teahouse. How pages are ordered in a category depends on what sort key (if any) has been specified on each article page. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort_keys for more detail. Edits might have to be made to easch out-of-place article to correct the sort key on that article. DES (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Rami.shareef the ones that are not correctly sorted either have no {{Defaultsort}} or it has been filled incorrectly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Perfect! Thank you both.Rami.shareef (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Commercial info help
Can someone help me with adding info on a [commercial] to the entry on Ben Folds? I asked about it at talk:Ben Folds.20:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.16.72 (talk)
- Thanks for your question. I have answered at the article talk page where any extended conversation is more likely to include participants familiar with the subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
linking from Wikipedia articles to draft article
My draft article has been submitted but not yet accepted. Can I link references in existing articles to it?Kerrisdalian (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Kerrisdalian: Welcome to the TeaHouse. The answer to your question is generally no. By convention, wikilinks between articles must be in the same "namespace", which in this case is the article one. I would wait until your draft is accepted, and then start creating those incoming links. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Kerrisdalian: I want to make sure I'm not confusing you - links from a draft to existing articles are fine, but links from articles to drafts are not. In other words, if you're working on Draft:Superman's cape, you can link to Superman and Aerodynamics from there, but you should not link from Superman to your draft. I hope that makes sense. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks; I understand.Kerrisdalian (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Umlaut messing up singlechart link
I recently created a page, Secrets (Tiësto and KSHMR song), and I'm having some problems creating references to the chart websites using the singlechart template. I think it may be because of the umlaut diacritic in the "artist" parameter, or maybe even the word "featuring". At the moment the link directs you to a search page on the website, which seems to be fine - although rather inconvenient -and this issue seems to go for all of Tiësto's songs.
And for your information, I have already tried using the HTML version of the diaeresis and umlaut, but to no avail. -PotatoNinja(Talk to me!) 14:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- @PotatoNinja: It looks to me like it's not the Ë in Tiësto, but the template syntax that's causing problems. Checking the syntax over at Template:Singlechart, it looks like there is no
ref=
parameter, since the template generates a reference itself. You've got such a parameter in yours (and two of them are for references to unrelated sources anyway); try removing that and see if your problem goes away. dalahäst (let's talk!) 01:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)- @Dalahäst: I was actually referring the "Hung Medien" websites above, although the billboard links are also obviously messed up (I will fix them later). It seems to be an issue to do with the way the template generates the URL, and this seems to go for all of Tiësto's songs using the singlechart template.
Adding images
I would like to add some images from the Bertha von Suttner project to Wikipedia. These images are all 19th century; are there any potential copyright problems ?
Additionally, how would I actually go about doing this ? The embed file option doesn't seem to have an option to go from an external site.
Also, I tried asking this question several times via the "ask a question" form and it did not work for some reason. Thank you, Stan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.32 (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Stan. Images from the 19th century are probably public domain. I've had a quick look at http://www.berthavonsuttner.com to see if it claimed copyright on anything, but it doesn't as far as I can see. (For more recent images, the default assumption is that material is copyright, but for pre-1923, the default is that it is not).
- The Mediawiki software will never display images from an external site: they must always be uploaded first, to Wikipedia, or preferably to Wikimedia commons. Please see WP:UPLOAD. --ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm Journeyman editor or Yeoman?
After completion of my 4000 edits I changed my service badge from "Journeyman" to "Yeoman", but one user reverted it saying that you did not completed 1 year yet so you are not "Yeoman". But I have seen many users show service badge only on the basis of number of edits and not years. Some service badge needs completion of 4-6 years, but still those users show it just on the basis of number of edits without completing said years. Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 09:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi User:Human3015, I use {{Service awards}} to keep it simple and (semi)automatic. With this template you simply put in the date of your first edit, your total number of edits and select the style of "badge" you want to display. The only ongoing maintenance you need to do is occasionally update your edit count. The "rank" depends on both the time and edit number achieved - so one year and 4000 edits would give you the "Yeoman" badge. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Human3015. If you read WP:Service awards you will find at the beginning, "These awards are unofficial – displaying the wrong one carries no penalty (except possible disapproval from other editors), and displaying the right one does not indicate authority or competence." In your case, another editor has expressed disapproval. My friendly suggestion is to wait until you have met both the time standard and the number of edits standard, but you can do whatever you want in this area. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Dash –
Why do I see – so often? Do users not have access to that dash (–)? —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- @DangerousJXD: According to MOS:EMDASH, either spaced en dashes – like these – or unspaced em dashes—like these—are acceptable in Wikipedia articles (though the usage should be consistent within any individual article). In the real world the en-dash style is perhaps more common in older and in British books. Deor (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I see what has happened here. The nowiki things did not work. I was talking about this but without the space: & ndash;. You will also see what I'm referring to in my post if you look at it in edit mode. Why would somebody type "&n dash;" instead of just "–"?. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- @DangerousJXD: OK, now I see what you're getting at. The
–
is the HTML code for an en dash (note that <code></code> rather than nowiki tags has to be used to display such code). The answer to your question is that some people just prefer to do it that way; see Wikipedia:How to make dashes#Long explanation. According to MOS:DASH, either method can be used. I myself prefer to click on the "Insert" characters below the edit box. Deor (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)- Thank you very much. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- @DangerousJXD: OK, now I see what you're getting at. The
- I see what has happened here. The nowiki things did not work. I was talking about this but without the space: & ndash;. You will also see what I'm referring to in my post if you look at it in edit mode. Why would somebody type "&n dash;" instead of just "–"?. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Please help (new bio draft)
Hello wikipedia community members. I have just created my first account and I have no idea how to proceed. I have written a short biography of the chairman of the State Emergency Management Agency in Borno State, Nigeria whose sole responsibility is the resettlement of the internally displaced people due to the insurgency of the boko haram. I seek the help of magnanimous and experienced editors/users in order to setup the page. I also have the subject's written permission to publish the article as well as his picture. Please help! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammeerah (talk • contribs) 06:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Ammeerah. You don't appear to have put your draft anywhere on Wikipedia yet, so I can't look at it and make comments. But in general, I would say, first of all read your first article, and if you decide after reading that the subject is suitable for a Wikipedia article, use the article wizard, which will help you create it in Draft space, and let you request a review when you think it is ready to be released.
- Some general points I would make:
- Every single piece of information in the article should be individually referenced to a reliable published source. If you know something, but you cannot find a published source, don't put it in.
- Apart from uncontroversial factual data like dates and places, every single piece of information should be cited to a source unconnected with the subject.
- If you cannot find any sources to meet the criteria above, then the subject is not at present notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) and will not be accepted.
- The text should be neutrally written: no promotional or evaluative words should be used (unless they are specifically what an independent reliable published source has said about the subject).
- All sides of whatever has been published about the subject in reliable places should be referred to: critical as well as supportive.
- The subject's permission is neither sought nor needed. Information from the subject should not be used unless it has been published as above.
- Pictures are welcome, but Wikipedia is very precise about copyright. An image can normally only be used if the copyright holder (who is usually the photographer rather than the subject), has explicitly released it under a suitable licence: see donating copyright materials.
- If you have further questions, please come back here and ask! --ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Fix Sources Overkill
Hello,
Can someone please help me fix up the overkill of sources for the following page - Draft:Alex Gilbert to help make this page notable. Someone mentioned about the overkill of sources. Alot of these are reliable and just need to be fixed. Thank You! Dmitry DmitryPopovRU (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello DmitryPopovRU, I have taken a look and removed the unreliable sources, the non-independent ones and those that didn't provide significant coverage of Gilbert (say library catalogue entries for his book). Rather few remain. Huon (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. I suggest the websites that you have trouble viewing. Try to watch them through a geo-unblocker. Thanks Huon, Thanks for your help! Dmitry DmitryPopovRU (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
How is Wikipedia financed?
How is Wikipedia financed? Mister-smith-GS7 (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hey Mister-smith-GS7. The Wikimedia Foundation which operates Wikipedias across many languages as well as many other sister projects is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization and is funded through donations. Please see wmf:Ways to Give. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- The links in the previous post are exactly right, however, it is worth adding that the contents of Wikipedia – the text you see and the images you see are provided almost solely by volunteers.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Identical problem on several articles
Several articles I have worked on have mentioned Royal College Colombo, calling it 'prestigious'- puffery which I have since removed. Is there an effective way to find all articles which mention this quickly; this looks like a deliberate form of promotion. Thanks, Rubbish computer 17:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Rubbish computer welcome back. I have moved your question, which I don't know how to answer, to the top where it will be seen. Usually people who ask the question in the wrong place are new, and I know you've been around a while. Please be careful because we want you to get an answer.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Vchimpanzee I asked the question on my mobile and it went to the bottom, which was beyond my control. I also can't paste on my mobile, so I couldn't move it; I should change my username to 'Rubbish computer and/or mobile'. Rubbish computer 21:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- [8] has all the articles that link to that page. I agree there's some dodgy ones, like Latin says "Some schools adopt Latin mottos such as "Disce aut discede" of the Royal College, Colombo". Joseph2302 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Joseph2302 Thank you for informing me and Vchimpanzee thank you for putting this at the top. Rubbish computer 21:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Rubbish computer this problem with posting on The Teahouse on a mobile sounds like something that should be reported to WP:VPT.
- And thank you Joseph2302. I was expecting the answer to be a bot that can spot puffery.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm starting with the alumni at List of Royal College Colombo alumni, an article I had no idea existed. Rubbish computer 22:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Rubbish computer: Since it appears a stock phrase has been used in many iterations I've found, "prestigious Royal College Colombo", you can at least target those with an internal search of the phrase in quotes and you can probably find all others using "Royal College Colombo" prestigious -"prestigious Royal College Colombo" (you could do the same using Google but with the inclusion of site:en.wikipedia.org). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit Thanks! Rubbish computer 23:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@Arjayay: Thank you, I as going to come back to it. Rubbish computer 14:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Editing a page
Hi
I am the press officer at Peterborough United Football Club - one of our former players' has a wikipedia page that contains a lot of false, inaccurate details. I want to rewrite this page and update it with stuff he is now doing. But everytime i go to edit the page, I am told I am violating it.
Is there an easier way to send the text that I want to use on the page somewhere and they can upload it?
The page is here which i wish to edit...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Fry
Theeditorphil (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hey Phil. Albeit, that is not a good article – one on a living person with no sourcing whatever despite being here since 2006 and being editing by many different people, but what you did in your two edits, whether intended or not, was to blank almost all the content, leaving the page in this state. Is that what you meant to do? That had the appearance of vandalism and objectively made the article a cipher with no content and some incomprehensible code on the page and so you were reverted – once by a human being and another time by a "bot" (an automated program that is taught to recognize edits that look like they were intended to harm). Since it appears you are here with a conflict of interest, what I suggest is that you go to the article's talk page: Talk:Adam Fry, and detail there your suggestions for the content. As intimated above, it is very important that sources are cited for content (as lacking here), so please keep that in mind in your suggestions. For example, for a particular fact you suggest, it might read not unlike: "As of 2015 he plays X position for X team... etc., which is verified by this source ______". The sources should ideally be reliable, secondary sources independent of him, like newspaper articles and the like. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- You cannot choose the text to add to Wikipedia, and removing all the current text and infoboxes is not the solution. If you have text supported by reliable sources then that can be added, however given your conflict of interest, it is preferred that you do not directly edit the article but suggest changes at the talkpage, see WP:COI.
- It appears it's also been put up for deletion, although I'm pretty sure WP:NFOOTY says it should be kept. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Supposing I read a random page on Wikipedia about any subject and there were missing or inefficient sources in the page content and when I go to edit that page what would be the way to do it? Maybe a good method would be to go to the relevant web pages that list details that refer to the subject mentioned on the page or cite books that I might know about that mention it if I have one to hand to look it up. Just learner 20:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just learner (talk • contribs)
Regarding new page creation for Raj
Hi Last one week onwards i am trying to create page for G Raj narayan. He famous person and leading entrepreneur in india.
But once i created its immediately delete from your side. I am not done any promotional activities or copyrights and also i added proper reference. but wiki administrator always deleting my page once i created. Please help what should i do? (10:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Raj Narayan (talk • contribs)
- Your username suggests you are the person, in which case you shouldn't be writing about yourself, per WP:AUTO. Also, it was deleted today as a G11- unambiguous advertising or promotion by @DGG:. If you aren't the person, then change your username at Wikipedia:Changing username, and then read Wikipedia:Your first article and WP:NPOV. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
How can change my username ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Raj Narayan (talk • contribs) 11:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- @G Raj Narayan: The easiest way is go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple, and request a new username that no-one already uses. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Raj. You say this was not promotional and did not violate copyright. I believe you when you say you think this but the objective facts are otherwise. As to promotion, the draft was unsalvageably promotional. This was not a close call but content that could be used as a textbook example of promotion. In short, it was a panegyric; a song of praise filled with glowing puffery. As to copyright, you may own the text, but it was still a copyright violation, because you were using it here but retaining non-free copyright ownership of it (as seen at your website). We cannot use non-free copyrighted content with the permission of the owner for one-time use but rather require a copyright release to the world under a free copyright license that is compatible with the free copyright licenses our content is (mostly) licensed under (or a public domain release). However, this content was unsuitable even if released. As to proper references, that would be to reliable, secondary sources, entirely independent of you, speaking about you in detail, and cited as sources – not a links section to your twitter feed and website and one citation to a company you are involved with. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear Fuhghettaboutit,
Thanks for pointing out the concerns and your patience for doing the necessary background check, We did go through some entrepreneurs from India and other countries as well to see if we can modify the tone of the content and make it look less promotional (can you point out specific sections if any so that it becomes easier for us to edit). Also, It will be really great if you please give me some reference pages so that we can follow similar structure and get it sorted.
Will it make sense to add a free copyright license or remove the existing one form my website. We are totally clueless on this, can you give us some more details as how to go about this. Thanks.(122.167.241.136 (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC))
translating dutch to english
I have found my grandfather on Wikipedia but it is in dutch and I unfortunately only speak English. Is there a way to translate articles to english? Joseph Karl Richter is the article.101.171.255.250 (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, 101.171.255.250. The correct spelling of the Dutch Wikipedia article's title is "Josef Karl Richter". You can go to Google Translate, select "Dutch" above the left-hand dialog box and "English" above the right-hand one, then paste the article's URL into the left box and click on the matching URL in the right box. The translation that provides looks adequate. Perhaps someone will get around to creating an article on the English Wikipedia before too long. Deor (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi 101.171.255.250 If you do not wish to do yourself Wikipedia:Translation suggests the option to request someone else create the page via a request at Requested articles Project section. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to get a draft going today. I will link it here as soon as I have started. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's done - Josef Karl Richter -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- The referencing could do with some improvement - I took them over "as is" from the Dutch article per AGF. Five are in German, one English and none are online. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Number of Portals in an article?
Greetings, I have checked the MOS, archives and at Wikipedia:Portal and am wondering if there are guidelines on the number of portals for any individual article. Some articles have none (Pope John XXIII), others have 6 or more (Pope Francis). Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, JoeHebda. The number of portals is determined by consensus among interested editors. My suggestion is to add a portal or two to the biography of the highly notable pope of half a century ago responsible for Vatican 2, and that you should suggest deleting the least relevant portal for the current Jesuit Pope. Boldness might suggest deletion of a portal without discussion, but on a highly viewed article, early discussion towards consensus is always advisable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Cullen328 for your answer. After I asked this question, with further investigation I found at the MOS/Layout, See_also_section a brief mention that As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. So if a Portal is already included within a Navbox template (usually with the below parameter), it should not be repeated in the SA section (and could be removed).
- Then I found at WP Tip of the Day (which I am updating from time-to-time) an entry for Tip / Portal, for June 25th. That tip contains a link to Wikipedia:Portal page. On this page, the section Portal, How to add portal links to articles explains in detail the where to place the Portal(s).
- Being bold, I plan to add another paragraph to this section including information about the adding and removal of portals, based upon your answer above, since this is currently missing and is helpful to know. Thanks for your answer as it helps to explain the process for reducing what may be excess portals in an article. And yes, I understand the benefit to starting a Talk page discussion prior to Portal removal to prevent misunderstandings. Cheers, JoeHebda (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Long Article
When an article (or at least some parts of it) should be moved to a subpage(s)? My guess is looking at byte numbers. Paleocemoski 22:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @Paleocemoski:. You will find some guidance here: Wikipedia:Article size. (and you wouldn't actually create "sub pages" which has a technical meaning Wikipedia:Subpages but rather spin out/child article.) and be sure to follow the attribution rules Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Greetings @Paleocemoski:, welcome to the teahouse. In addition to the good info that TheRedPenOfDoom gave you I suggest you look at this article: Wikipedia:Splitting if I'm understanding you, that is the thing you want to do. Splitting is one of those Wikipedia words that has a special meaning, its when an article has too much info and needs to be divided up into two (or possibly even more) smaller articles. Note you mentioned the "byte number", in my experience number of bytes or characters is not a very good metric for when to do a split. Better metrics are how well does the topic flow, is there enough info (and enough disparate topics) to justify doing a split, etc. Sheer number of bytes is certainly not irrelevant but its not the best way to decide. Please note that there is a process for doing a Split. you are supposed to post a template on the page to be split and then start a discussion on the talk page of the article. The process is described in that article I linked to. FYI, the inverse of doing a split is a wp:merge where you take two articles that are about very similar topics and merge them into one. Hope that was helpful. The split and merge processes IMO are a bit more convoluted than they should be but once you do it once it is fairly obvious. Reply back on my talk page if you want help with that. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- The answer printed here seems like a good response to the question that was asked. I would merge two articles referring to a similar topic compared with the way the two read and put the content from them into one article. I would consider it if I was doing that kind of contribution to something on a page. Just learner 20:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just learner (talk • contribs)
Michael Stephans entry
Hello, I've submitted this article twice, currently it is up for review. In the meantime, I'd like to get some feedback regarding any edits I should consider making. Specifically, "notability". Thanks Ben https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Michael_Stephans_%282%29&redirect=no Bpscholz (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Bpscholz: and welcome to the Teahouse. Notability is the amount of attention something has gained from the world at large and over a period of time. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. The general notability guideline is:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. (See WP:Golden rule.)
- "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that people don't have to research for themselves to find this. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of a source.
- "Reliable" means sources need to be trusted to be accurate.
- "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event; for example, a news reporter who has nothing to do with Michael Stephans talking about him because he is newsworthy.
- "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
- "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included.
When this draft was most recently rejected it was because it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. You need sources that talk about Stephans in more detail. This source, for example, fails to demonstrate his importance, instead only including him in a list. Also, Wikipedia's citation guidelines concerning what is written about living people are strict and you will need to either find sources for what you say about him or remove them. I would also work on the wording (see WP:Puffery)- it sounds promotional at times. For example, instead of writing '...Michael's work has been published in numerous literary journals', even with a source, you need to specifically state some of the literary journals or a number with a source; 'numerous' could mean any amount. If you are quoting a source you would need to write this as 'numerous'. Instead of writing or pasting the URL you can put [[these brackets]] around the name to create a link- Draft:Michael Stephans (2). I hope this helps. Rubbish computer 15:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello,
Thanks for the suggestions. I changed the wording and removed some of the sources that had dubious relevancy. I also added and removed redlinked brackets for every name and source that has an existing wikipedia entry. I will continue to search for more sources that talk about Stephans in detail. In the meantime, if you have any further specific suggestions, please let me know. Thanks again. Ben Bpscholz (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- BpscholzI got rid of the & symbol in the opening section as it didn't seem appropriate. I also removed 'award-winning' concerning his writing as this is vague; you need to state what he won and back this up with a reliable reference, or not include it if you can't find one. I would say you're on the right track looking for the references, though. Rubbish computer 16:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I rephrased the wording so that it mentions the Rachel Sherwood award he won in 2000. I'll keep digging for more references.
Ben Bpscholz (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Assassin's Creed film
is there Assassin's Creed film wiki page if not then why its confirmed for 2016 Release date . Dkmsn8 (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome, Dkmsn8. No. Not yet. There most likely will be soon but not at the moment. You don't have to worry about it. Somebody will create that article eventually. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
so if i want to creat, i can, will it be deleted ?dkm (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I strongly advise not creating it. You need a lot of experience to create an article, Dkmsn8. There is no rule against actually doing it though. It will most likely be deleted if you make it yes. You are very welcome to work on the article when it is made. When first editing Wikipedia, it is best to stick to articles that are already here. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thanx for replying, btw how can i get experience u talked about, i really wanna contribute to wikidkm (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just takes time, Dkmsn8. If you are passionate about editing Wikipedia and really want to contribute, it just takes time. —DangerousJXD (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
hmm.. thanks for suggestion,...dkm (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Dkmsn8. Wikipedia rarely accepts articles about things in the future, mostly because there is usually not enough reliable independent information published about them to ground an article (in Wikipedia jargon, they are not "notable"). See WP:CRYSTAL. If you can find several articles in major newspapers talking about the film (and not just written from press releases, but written by people with no connection with the film or its producers) then there can be an article. Otherwise, no. --ColinFine (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thanks for information , colinfine,btw is this reliable enough http://screenrant.com/assassins-creed-movie-poster/dkm (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Dkmsn8, I don't know the reputation of http://screenrant.com, which would be key to deciding if this soruces is reliable. If it seems to be, this would b a good start, but more than one independant reliable source would be needed for a new article. DES (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Dkmsn8, There is a draft for the film. You can find it here. The article is not ready and are "under construction". You may help by adding more information which is supported by reliable sources to the draft. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thanks for information , btw Bill Collage (screenplay), Adam Cooper isn't Writer ?dkm (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Use of journal citation for list of periodicals
Hey there!
I happened upon this periodical list yesterday at an edit-a-thon. It currently has piles of "Missing or empty |title=" errors, since the journal citation is being used to refer to entire journals, rather than individual issues of them. What the help info states doesn't seem to work—filling out |journal=, for instance, results in the same error.
How can I fix the citations? Or, is this a case where they aren't an appropriate format?
Thanks for the help! Verbistheword (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Verbistheword, welcome to the Teahouse. You are right, that is surely not what {{Cite Journal}} is intended to be used for. It is designed to cite a journal, not to refer to it or format it for a bibliography. I think it would be best to use a different method of formatting these list items. It could be done manually. I will look to see if an appropriate tempalte exists. DES (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks, DES! I'll stand by for your advice. Verbistheword (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- On a quick look, i don't see any obvious templates for this purpose, Verbistheword. I will look further, but may not repond quickly. DES (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good, DES. I'll put the page on my to do list, and if I decide on a format on my own, I'll report back here, just for completeness' sake. Have a great one! Verbistheword (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I believe it is acceptable to use citation templates such as {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Using citation templates as long as there is a consensus to do so. You just have to pick the right template and make sure all of the necessary parameters are filled in. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- But that page was trying to use {{Cite journal}} not to reference an articel in a journal, but the whole journal. Cite journal is not desigend for that and I think it cannot be used that way. That is why it requires the title parameter to be filled. I am currently workign on a new template, "List journal" to fulfill this function. DES (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't mean for it to sound like I was trying to correct you DES, so sorry if it came off as such. The templates won't work properly when they aren't used properly. As you say, there needs to be an entry for
|title=
for the template to work. Anyway, I was just trying to say that templates can be used to format bibliographies, etc., but they themselves have to be formatted correctly for things to work right. Your idea of "List journal" sounds like a good one. Good luck.- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't mean for it to sound like I was trying to correct you DES, so sorry if it came off as such. The templates won't work properly when they aren't used properly. As you say, there needs to be an entry for
- But that page was trying to use {{Cite journal}} not to reference an articel in a journal, but the whole journal. Cite journal is not desigend for that and I think it cannot be used that way. That is why it requires the title parameter to be filled. I am currently workign on a new template, "List journal" to fulfill this function. DES (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I believe it is acceptable to use citation templates such as {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Using citation templates as long as there is a consensus to do so. You just have to pick the right template and make sure all of the necessary parameters are filled in. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good, DES. I'll put the page on my to do list, and if I decide on a format on my own, I'll report back here, just for completeness' sake. Have a great one! Verbistheword (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- On a quick look, i don't see any obvious templates for this purpose, Verbistheword. I will look further, but may not repond quickly. DES (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks, DES! I'll stand by for your advice. Verbistheword (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@Verbistheword:}, @Marchjuly: I have now created {{List journal}} and used it extensivly in this list article. What do you think of the result? DES (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- DES, I think it's a brilliant solution! Thank you, Marchjuly, for your help, too. To make it easier for other editors who encounter this error, I added a mention of the new template in the help section where I was previously directed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbistheword (talk • contribs) 13:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)