Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 189

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 185 ← Archive 187 Archive 188 Archive 189 Archive 190 Archive 191 → Archive 195

How can we create multiple sandboxes?

How can we create multiple sandboxes?Tangshiq (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Tangshiq, welcome to the Teahouse! You can actually create as many sandboxes as you want with any title you want: the only requirement is that the name must start with "User:Tangshiq/", which is what indicates that it's your own sandbox. So, you can go to User:Tangshiq/Sandbox or User:Tangshiq/sandbox2 oy User:Tangshiq/New article draft, create any or all of those, and they can all serve as your sandboxes. As long as you have that bit at the front, you should be okay. Does that help? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello Tangshiq and welcome to the Teahouse! I've gone ahead and placed a template I created to make creating drafts in your userspace real easy on your User:Tangshiq/sandbox page. Simply go to that page, type the name of a draft you want to start and click the button. That box will keep track of all of your drafts making them simple to find and you can create as many as you want using that same method... Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 22:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: The tool is at User:Tangshiq/Sandbox (note the capital S). Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ranking System

How do I find and enable the gadget to view how an article is ranked? I understand the rank of an article's quality will then show in the article header.Ms. Vibrarian (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ms Vibrarian, and welcome to the teahouse! Look on the article talk page for this info. It can be altered there, too, although many people will be watching what you are up to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
At Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets you can enable "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article." PrimeHunter (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the notability of this book.

I'm planning to make an article on a book called "Undergrounders", by David Skuy. I think it meets one of the criteria for inclusion, because it won the Silver Birch award for Fiction (the Silver Birch award is part of the Forest of Reading program), although I'm a little afraid that an editor will not think the book is notable. Please reply, thanks! |CanadianDude1| 00:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, CanadianDude1, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm seeing plenty of independent, reliable reviews with a simple google search. I don't foresee any difficulty establishing notability. As long as you avoid citing blogs you should be ok. Good luck! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

How do I create a disambiguation page?

I worked on an article recently dealing with the disappearance of Michael Anthony Hughes. His mother's name is Sharon Marshall and she is the source of a lot of mystery too as she was likely kidnapped as a child. I think a lot of people might google Sharon Marshall, but the page is already taken. I've noticed some people do the whole "not to be confused with..." thing, but I don't see a way to do it unless the page has the name name. Do I need to change the name of the established Sharon Marshall page to like "Sharon Marshall (actress)"? Any ideas? Bali88 (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If there is only one other less notable person then we usually make a hatnote and not a disambigutation page, for example (click edit to see the code):
For the mother of Michael Anthony Hughes, see Michael Anthony Hughes.
"Not to be confused with" is for similar but not identical names. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Bali88 (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

about miss lines from Lord Shiva page

Hi,I'm new here

I want to know about my editing on Shiva page which is suddenly deleted by unknown.the line about Asoka Sundari.Thank You Abyshree (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

First, welcome to Wikipedia! Your edits weren’t deleted (at least as I write this). But you should first read some of the Wikipedia guidelines on editing articles before you begin, such as Wikipedia:Citing sources. URL-only citations generally are not sufficient. The information you put on the page also does not seem to belong in the article summary at the top, and it has spelling and grammatical errors. FenixFeather (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Transforming my sandbox draft into a regular page

Hello, I am new and have used my user page to draft a page.

It is now ready but I do not understand how I transform my draft into a separate and "normal" page (title: "Gabriel Epstein").

Here is my user page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Meailleurs

Many thanks, Marc Meailleurs (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Marc, welcome to the teahouse. If you put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page, it will be reviewed when a reviewer gets to it (may take a few weeks) and accepted if appropriate. An alternative, if you're confident it will be OK as an article, is to WP:MOVE it to the correct title yourself. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. You had put your draft on your user page, rather than at a sandbox or user subpage. I have moved it from User:Meailleurs to User:Meailleurs/Gabriel Epstein for you. I was going to add a {{userspace draft}} to the top of the draft, which would then allow you to submit it to AFC for review, but at a first glance I see no reeason why it shouldn't be moved straight to mainspace. As your account is autoconfirmed you can do this yourself. The process is at move, and the move button is under the down arrow towards the top right of the screen, near the search box. Make sure that in the boxes for destination of the move you select (Article) in the namespace dropdown, & then change "Meailleurs/Gabriel Epstein" to "Gabriel Epstein" in the title box. A brief explanation in the reason box, & Bob's your uncle. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Done! Many thanks, that was easier than I thought.Meailleurs (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Succession box problem

I set up a series of articles about the mayors of Charleston, South Carolina, and I think I made a mistake in setting up the succession boxes at the bottom of the entries. Several of them have had people edit the entries, and something is going wrong with them. Many of the articles have a "Personal Data" component to them (that is hidden from view but included in the text of the article). For some reason, after some editing, the contents of that personal data is getting jumbled into the succession box. The succession box is having several extra lines added and the info is showing up. Hard to explain. But, if you look up Milton Cogswell, you'll see just one example. WITHOUT actually making the fixes (unless you are kind-hearted enough to do all of them), can someone please look at that (or one of the other examples) and explain what the problem is? ProfReader (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got {{S-start}} before the succession box, so you need {{S-end}} after the box and before the persondata. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
And for further clarification, the reason that you didn't see the problem when you first added the succession box is that you added it after the persondata. A bot then came along later and sorted the components of the article into the preferred order, and that edit then allowed the fault in your coding to have a greater effect. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!ProfReader (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Tagging

How do I add tags to articles that I think don't meet wikipedia's standards? I keep coming across articles that look like they've been written by fans or PR companies.

Thank you.

Golden apples of the sun (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, try referencing Cleanup and Cleanup Templates. Also, try to fix simple errors yourself when possible. Chris Moore (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Golden apples of the sun (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

references in another language

i found an english language reference for something that there are lots of references for in another uncommon language. would you prefer the other language references? my entry has been rejected twice.Conscientia (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Conscientia. Whilst we prefer English sources (this being the English Wikipedia, it makes sense to use sources in the same language) there's no ruling against foreign language sources. Sources in Indonesian, as long as they meet the reliable sources criteria, are absolutely fine. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It is helpful to state the language they are in when using non English language references, though. We have to remember to write for a readership, not for ourselves. Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Issue involving the name "Frank Muller"

I'm currently writing a VERY basic article about NGC 66, which was discovered by someone named "Frank Muller" in 1886, according the the NGC/IC Public Database. Unfortunately, the only "Frank Muller" I can find on Wikipedia is an actor of some description, as well as "Franck Muller," the watchmaker. I'm concerned that if I don't wikilink "Frank Muller" to the astronomer, that after the article is published, someone who means well will wikilink it without checking on who the Wikipedia article entitled "Frank Muller" is about. Recommendations?5donuts (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

5donuts, hi and welcome to the Teahouse, the easiest way is to add the link yourself as a WP:REDLINK like [[Frank Muller (astronomer)|Frank Muller]] to produce Frank Muller. That way it's obvious the link isn't to an existing Frank Muller. Nthep (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

How do I add badges?

There are some badges for things like hobbies, I asked this before in another question. I want to add some badges to my user page. I need to find the location so I can pick a few hobbies and interests to make my "user page", not "my user talk page" more interesting. If this was answered I did not see it. Apriv40dj (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The place where your question was asked & answered was on my user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion...but how?

Hello. Where could I find templates to put on pages so as to mark them for speedy deletion? Thank you. Overlasting Peace (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The criteria for speedy deletion are listed, with the corresponding templates, at WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. Overlasting Peace (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

How to put a picture in the article

I have succesfully uploaded a png image, but I an unable to get it to appear in the article I keep trying to load it into......can someone help me?Harold Knudsen (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. The picture tutorial shows you how to do this in detail, but the basic code is [[File:Filename.png]]. If you want to make it a smaller image with a caption, use [[File:Filename.png|thumb|Caption]] Anon126 (talk - contribs) 17:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
You uploaded File:Division Movements.png. Capitalization matters. I fixed the file name in the article [1] and the image now displays. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Primehunter - Mange Tak. I will pay attention to the caps next time I input a diagram, and thank you Anon126. I will go through the tutorial. Harold Knudsen (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is helpful! ManagerFriendly (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding sourced material.

A lawyer and manager is adding things on Tiffany Limos page but it keeps getting deleted. Its verified information. There is also sourced magazine and book content that they want to add - but will that get deleted too? They also tried to add a photo and some anonymous source keeps taking it down. Is there anyone who can help? ManagerFriendly (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello ManagerFriendly. It looks like the information was removed because it didn't pertain specifically to the subject of the article. The pictures may have been removes due to not being free use. As a rule, Wikipedia doesn't like using fair use or copyrighted material unless it's absolutely necessary. Hope this helps. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Celtic FC

Hi can anyone of the Celtic persuasion change the Celtic FC wiki page that states that the club"is owned by the PLC" which is totally inaccurate.Thanks.82.36.56.20 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you please tell specify which text exactly you want me to change? The phrase "is owned by the PLC" does not appear anywhere in the article Celtic F.C. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the OP intended to refer to the line "Owner Celtic PLC " in the infobox? Is there a RS that says that this isn't true? --David Biddulph (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Newbie here :)

hi guyts, im pretty new to editing wiki pages, anyone have any reccomendations for my edits? MarinaMarshall (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi MarinaMarshall, welcome to the Teahouse. A good place to start is the Wikipedia primer, which will give you a run-down of how things work here; you might also want to take the tutorial as well. After that, you could have a look at creating an article or, if you prefer, take a look at some of the stuff on Wikipedia's To-Do list. Above all, enjoy editing here, and don't be afraid to ask for help if you need it. Happy editing. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I am new too. ManagerFriendly (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, ManagerFriendly. Feel free to ask questions about editing Wikipedia at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Things that are hard to verify

Hello, I have a question regarding things that are hard to find sources for, obviously if you add something unsourced to an already establish article the chances of it being removed is quite high, can you give any advice or pointers regarding this? Thanks. 195.162.87.201 (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean hard to verify, or impossible to verify? If it's the former, then I'm afraid the advice is - try harder. If Google Books and Google News don't provide anything usable, you could consider asking for help at the resource exchange noticeboard; someone there might be able to locate something. If the information genuinely can't be verified in reliable sources, then it doesn't belong here, pure and simple, and so reversion is entirely appropriate. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
A trip to your local public library may be helpful, and librarians love tough challenges. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Need Help on Rejected Article Creation.

Hi,this is my article creation; Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lia Johnson. I can't seem to get it approve and how do I also get a picture up? Help, Hanz Medina (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hanz, articles are required to have references to sources which are independent of the subject to reliable sources. IMDB isn't considered a reliable source because its content is user-submitted. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Drag Me to Hell is a notable horror film, Hanz Medina. However, Lia Johnson is listed #34 on the film credits, with a unnamed role of "waitress". This is the film mentioned first in your draft article. To me, it seems very unlikely that an actress best known for such a minor role would meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for actors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

How to get a review for my first article?

Hi, I wish to get some review for my first article (User:Mikicook/sandbox), before I ask for it to be created, how could this be done? Thanks Mikicook 17:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. Your article seems to have been reviewed already, so if you want it reviewed again, you may click the "Resubmit" button near the top of the submission. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 17:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, that answers my question, so thanks for that and for the quick reply. Best Mikicook 07:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikicook (talk • contribs)

Merging AfC with namespace

I recently reworked and resubmitted The Minimalists article after creating the Joshua Fields Millburn and Ryan Nicodemus articles in the AfC talkspace. After further review of all three pages I believe the best course of action is to merge the three into The Minimalists article as it is a biography of the two of them. Most of the sources available discuss both authors, they've co-authored many books (but not all), and the information on their life after 2010 is pretty much all jointly attributable. I've read WP:merging and understand the basic concept of that. Just not sure how it applies to merging from AfC space to namespace, and I'm worried that I'll mess this up if I try it on my own. I've proposed it in the Talk:The Minimalists but that's as far as I've gone. Any help is appreciated. Chris Moore (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Chris, welcome to the Teahouse! If you think that content at the AFC submissions should be merged with The Minimalists, I would say go ahead and be bold with it. Treat it like merging two articles. Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge for help with merging. You basically just copy-paste the content from the pages to the destination article, and note on the talk page that you've done so. After you've merged the content, change the source pages to a redirect by replacing all of their content with #REDIRECT [[The Minimalists]] {{R from merge}} If I am unclear, feel free to leave a note below and I'll be happy to clarify anything. Best, Mz7 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Haha, yeah I should probably be bold more often. I wasn't sure if I could handle it. I'll re-read the Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge info and give it a shot. Thanks for your help! I'll be back. Chris Moore (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Mz7 Done! I was able to do everything except tag the talk pages of the two source pages with {{merged-to|destination page|date}} since the source articles are still in the AfC talk namespace. I put in the redirects and resubmitted the pages for approval. If they're approved I can go back and add afterwards. Thanks again for your help. Chris Moore (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this source reliable for the Release history section of an article?

Hi,

I detected a problem in the Release history section of a Featured Article about a Madonna song, here. The Australia iTunes link is wrong (it's a US iTunes link which is repeated further down in that section). However, this site seems extremely complete and accurate, and could in theory be used for the entire section as a source. My only concern is its reliability. You see, in the About me page of that website, the owner describes himself as simply "Honza" (no last name), from the Czech Republic. Also, the server (http://www.sweb.cz/) turns out to be a Czech server that lets you build free websites.

So, please, can that site (which looks great) be used in the article? Besides, isn't it wrong to have links to online music shops, such as iTunes? Yet it's a Featured Article. That's a question, and so is the reliability of that site as a source. Thank you very much in advance for your time and help! Dontreader (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Don. You were already given an answer (with rationale) to these questions. If you want another opinion, the WP:RSN would be a more appropriate place to ask. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lesser Cartographies. Your answer made no sense to me. Long ago you suggested this place to me for answers to questions. Please stop stalking me. I have the right to receive an answer here. Dontreader (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
That appears to be a self published source, Dontreader. In my opinion, it should not be considered a reliable source in this situation. Please read this specific section, and also the entire guideline which explains how to evaluate the reliability of a source. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Cullen328, for your research and help. The material you provided makes me realize that the source is even worse than I had previously thought. I left a message on the talkpage of that Madonna article yesterday, so I'll let them figure out how to replace the incorrect link. The source I provided obviously won't do. Thanks again for your kind help! Dontreader (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Please be aware, Dontreader that each individual source needs to be carefully evaluated in context. It doesn't look reliable to me at this time, but other experienced editors may have a different opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Cullen. I'm afraid Don has left out a couple important bits of information. I suggested using the madonnacollector site as an example of why we need not rely on iTunes and Amazon when other sources are available. The claim to be supported by the site is uncontroversial, and the site has been cited as an authoritative source in academic literature. Don disagreed, and came here asking about the reliability without mentioning the academic citation or the significance of the claim. The context is on my talk page. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions, should you have time an inclination to do so. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fine with me, Lesser Cartographies and Cullen328. What I don't want, however, is for fellow Teahouse hosts to give priority to protecting each other's reputation over helping Teahouse guests learn about Wikipedia. Many thanks, and eagerly awaiting your reply, Cullen... Dontreader (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no expertise in referencing Madonna song articles. However, I continue to maintain that, as a general rule, self-published websites written by anonymous people are not considered reliable. How many times has this anonymous self-published website been cited in peer-reviewed academic literature, Lesser Cartographies? Have those academic sources addressed the authorship and credibility of the website in detail? Every rule has its exception, and perhaps there is significant coverage of this particular self published website that indicates that it is reliable. I look forward to learning much more about its credibility. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Cullen328, for once again taking the time to shed light on this matter. To me your arguments seem impeccable and very clear, and WP:SPS is indeed very helpful. In my opinion the fact that this author is anonymous is the biggest obstacle for claiming that the source is reliable, but there are other problems that I can see from the Wikilink that you gave me. When I debated the issue with Lesser Cartographies, I could not understand him, so hopefully by seeing how he tries to justify the reliability of the source with you (a very experienced Wikipedian, as he is) I will comprehend what he was saying. I'm very grateful. Dontreader (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Cullen, the source in question is marginal enough that if I decide to use it I'll need to make an argument on the relevant talk page as to why its reliability is proportional to the claim being made. If Don was asking his question in good faith, I'd be happy to discuss hypotheticals here. As things stand, I consider the matter closed. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Being accused of vandalism

Hello. This may be completely the wrong place to be complaining but wikipedia doesn't seem to have any other provision for seeking help. I've basically been accused via my IP address' talk page (I think that's what it's called) of vandalism and unhelpful editing since may 2013; I've been aware of this for a few months.

Not only have I never even visited some of the pages that I've been accused of vandalising but I don't even know how to edit, let alone vandalise! Nor have I ever tried. As such this won't be much of a problem as I don't do or intend to do any editing but I still would like to know why I am being falsely accused? 176.35.242.226 (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Isn't there a box at the foot of your user talk page, saying

"This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address."

? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In other words, it's likely someone else at the same IP address who did the vandalizing if you have never edited wikipedia. Disregard the message. Bali88 (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of Musical score

Hey there, I m in the process of creating an article about an avant garde music piece by George Crumb named Vox Balaenae (Voice of the whale). As the piece uses raher unique instrumentation and techniques, is it possible to post a partial score that demonstrates the markings without violating copyright??Coal town guy (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes, it is possible. According to the non-free content policy, you are allowed to upload copyrighted works to Wikipedia as long as there is no free equivalent and its omission would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article (there are more criteria, but these are two important points). From what you have described, since the piece uses unique technique, posting a partial score for the sole purpose of improving the reader's understanding of the subject should be allowable, as long as it is used once in the article and is only a small portion of it. On the image description page, make sure you add a fair use rationale describing what the image is used for and how it meets the non-free content criteria. I would recommend using the File Upload Wizard to make things easier. Personally, I still use it sometimes for convenience. Best, Mz7 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Most excellent, I will of course provide the rational.......MUCh appreciate the replyCoal town guy (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Page name

Mistakenly, I have made a page and gave the name Street Children in Bangladesh and I want to change it to Street children in Bangladesh. Please change it for me or tell me how to change. Please mention me in your answers or just leave the answer on my talk page. Thank you. Sakib14 (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The process to move an article is at WP:Move. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there! Renaming a page is called moving on Wikipedia, since you're really moving a page and its entire history to a new title. To do this, go to the top of the page, and next to the "View history" tab, you'll see a dropdown menu. "Move" is one of the options (or it may be the only option) listed. Click that, and it should take you to a page allowing you to rename the page. You can also navigate to Special:MovePage/Street Children in Bangladesh specifically. If I am unclear, leave a note below and I'll be happy to clarify anything. Mz7 (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP?

If there are people under 18 who are the subject of an article, such as james Whitley (alpine skier), can we include their date of birth? Thanks, Matty.007 17:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In general, I think that it is best to give the year of birth instead of the exact birth date for a minor. Editors should never do original research for birth dates. The exact date can be mentioned only if it has been widely discussed in reliable sources. For example, if the person was born right after midnight on New Year's Day, and this fact is mentioned repeatedly in reliable sources, it could be included. Or if their birth itself was notable, as in the case of royalty or highly famous parents. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Cullen328. Even if the DOB is said in several sources, we can't add it for minors? Thanks, Matty.007 19:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
There have been several proposals made about controlling this, but none of these have achieved consensus. There have also been several extremely vitriolic discussions such as this one.
The only mention at all of minors in WP:BLP is at WP:BLPTALK "minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages"
WP:DOB includes "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object."
In the case you are referring to, I assume the birth of a grandson to a former Prime Minister, was covered at the time. Moreover, as a sportsman, Dates of Birth are frequently referred to, as they often determine eligibility for competitions e.g. inclusion or exclusion from an "under XX" competition and the records of Youngest participant etc. His DoB is clearly stated on the Paralympics GB website and several others, so is already widely available, and in these circumstances IMHO I do not see it creates a problem. Arjayay (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I was also asking as I have written a couple of Paralympian pages recently, such as the 15 year old GB flag-bearer. Given that basically the only minors I write about are sportspeople who normally have a DOB on the internet; it is useful to know that including their DOB is fine. Thanks for the answers, Matty.007 19:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Assistance for citations and notability

I am trying to improve this article, which I recently contributed, but which was declined. I was hoping someone could help me parse the reviewer response, so I can determine which areas of the article are problematic, or which specific citations do not meet the guidlines. Any guidance would be helpful. Thanks so much

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ellen_Rogers

Jasonwclark (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello @User:Jasonwclark. Try looking at List of photographers and specifically look at the sources they use. I didn't check all your sources but every one I did check was just a transcribed interview. This is too close to a primary source. You should find references that are stories about the subject's notability from reliable sources that fact-check their articles. A cursory google search leads me to believe the subject may not be notable (I'm not part of the photography world). She appears to be popular in some circles right now but popularity and fame alone aren't enough to show a subject as notable. You'll need to find more reliable secondary sources that help justify notablity. Chris Moore (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick and helpful reply Chris Moore. This feedback is much clearer than the initial message I received when the article was declined. I have found wikipedia to be somewhat lacking in information about important photographers, as compared to the other figures in the visual arts. So this is something I was hoping to work on. One challenge seems to be that, while secondary sources may feature specific works by artists, locating citations about biographical information was more readily available in the form of interviews. Frequently arts publications and fashion magazines will feature such works unaccompanied by interviews or additional information, so the fact that so many of these exists for this particular artists, seemed to indicate a level of notoriety somewhat uncommon in the field. Can such citations be used to back up the simple biographical information I included, provided I can find additional citations that establish further notobility?
I remain convinced that this artist has produced notable work and has exercised a notable influence on peers in the world of contemporary photography (my reason for drafting it up in the first place). I think future denizens of the wikiverse, and readers interested in the arts and humanities, will benefit from an entry about this particular artist, but I understand the need to improve the article based on the suggestions above. I will continue working on it, and thanks again for your help

Jasonwclark (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jasonwclark, The argument you make about the inclusion of interview text makes a strong argument in my mind. You should definitely keep these sources in the article as they do not detract from the notability or verifiability by themselves. Again, I'm little more than a hobby photographer so I can't speak intelligently about the industry. I think it's a valid argument that reliable photography publications would be more focused on the photos than on the biographical data of the artist. I think a very strong case could be made for notability based only on the amount of publications the artists work has been featured in if it's significantly higher than your run of the mill professional photographers. You might also find a BLP of another photographer and see who did most of the work on the article and ask for their help by going to their talk page. I'll keep checking back here when I think about it. Chris Moore (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Try this link Notability criteria for photographers. Chris Moore (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
This reply and the response I received from the initial reviewer of the article earlier today have been encouraging. At first I was a bit disheartened , that the research I did culling interviews and trying to source Bio information might be in vain, but now I think the issue might be more in the drafting. I have been able to locate several publication citations (the actual physical magazines and periodicals available at the library), but for readability does it make sense to include them as endnotes rather than inline citations? The artist has also made academic contributions to the study of photography in the form of lecture series, and shared a number of her photographic works for open use, on a public section of her site http://bloggable.ellenrogers.co.uk/ which feature on many arts and culture sites. Google image search for me returned number of such works which have been disseminated rather widely across the web. These also list works, provide additional data about individual contributions and working collaborations, which may be useful, but I have tried to avoid citing this information it is available in that external link. I have found two books by the artist, when I google searched as "author". A catalog of published materials from magazines and periodicals with issue and page numbers. Would that make sense to have in endnote citations? I didn't want to overload the article with inlines, for readability, since the entry is fairly direct and concise (the I did try to connect it back to the broader wiki with some internal links last night), but I could add that citation information at the bottom if it makes sense.
I will also explore your suggestion about the talk pages for BLPs of other photographers. Thanks so much, for the thoughtful response.
I appreciate the assistance and the feedback
Jasonwclark (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I have written five biographies of photographers, Jasonwclark, and done a major expansion of another. Those include Cedric Wright, Tom Frost, Dugan Aguilar, Leni Sinclair, Fred R. Archer and Ethan Russell. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Cullen, thank you so much! I was just looking around to see if I could find authors of arts and photography articles. I am looking over your pages right now. Back with some Qs in a moment
Jasonwclark (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
@Jasonwclark: First, look at Notability criteria for photographers and see if she meets any of those criteria. If she does, then my suggestion would be to take a deep breath and settle in on this article. No need to rush it. Layout the page like you want it to end up, with different sub headings, lists of notable works, an infobox, etc. Then go back and fill in the information you have into the correct sub headings with any citation you have even if it means having little blue numbers everywhere right now. Then you can cut out unneeded citations, hide them, and see where you need more. citation overkill has several suggestions. To your point about not including information that is available at the external source. INCLUDE IT. That is why we're here, to compile the knowledge into a singular, reliable source. There are a number of ways in which you can include source material. Inline citing is most common but not required. I think it's best to start off with the inline citations then move stuff to a separate reference list later to clean up the article. This may not work for you, as I was recently told BE BOLD! Chris Moore (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. I like this process and see the advantage of deliberation. I have received a lot of excellent assistance today for which I am very grateful.

I had hoped when initially drafting the article, to come up with a nice layout and include an infobox, but thought it would probably make sense to start simple and see what needed adjustment. I just read the notability criteria for photographers, and she does seem to meet the requirements, (though I may not have properly cited all the information available, since my focus was online materials to start) I will need to draft it in for the next round. Thanks for the links and the suggestions. I will get to work. Best J Jasonwclark (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Another interesting challenge, which is perhaps unique to contemporary fine art and fashion photography (as opposed to say documentary photography our photojournalism) is that the photographers are often published in fashion and contemporary arts magazines. There is perhaps a bias here against such publications as unreliable in some way? I would suggest that fact checking and verification of materials is important to these publications, at least as far as the presentation of work. Photographers are sometimes credited with images for accompanying articles or editorials, similar to the way traditional illustrators were, but they are not always the subject of those articles. Which is why seeing so many stand alone interviews and discussions of the photographer herself struck me as notable. They would seem to demonstrate a level of critical interest in the work, that extends beyond just the common inclusion of illustrations to support the magazines content, to an interest in the artist behind them.

That said, there are still a number of periodicals with an international readership, which feature relevant photographic art materials on their own that could be included as demonstrating influence. I wonder if there is perhaps a bias here in favor of a certain kind of indicator of notability, which applies better to people who worked in the 20th century as opposed to the 21st? I have included some online materials I thought might be of interest, but I think to demonstrate a case on the strength/number of published materials, does it make sense to include the physical information, month/issue number/page? For some publications material is mirrored online, so those are the ones I concentrated on to start. Will keep thinking on it and checking back as I gather more information Jasonwclark (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Be Bold! I enjoyed that too. Thanks Jasonwclark (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify that last question. Just as an indicator of sufficient fame or notoriety, for the 20th century, the preference seems to be for full issue citations with the page number/month. So I have found sources which state directly examples of the international publications for which she has done work (many of these have internal wikis mentions here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fashion_magazines) but I could also include the specific issues with page info if that makes sense?

I am also intrigued by the infobox, as a way to organize some of the basic info. I am not sure, it does seem like it would be appropriate for a page about photography to have at least one photograph. But this would have to available in the commons right? So unless someone has uploaded an image of/by her this seems unlikely. Still if I can do a better job introducing the subject with the words and citations and formatting, I think its worth the effort. Again, many thanks for volunteering and helping us here in the teahouseJasonwclark (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a bias against fashion or contemporary arts magazines, whether print or online, as long as the coverage is independent and the magazine has professional editorial control and a reputation for fact checking. If a magazine, even a very well known one, publishes credited work by a photographer, that credit does not confer notability. It is not significant coverage. It is run of the mill for professional photographers, most of whom are not notable. But if the same magazine runs an in-depth review of the photographer's work and career, perhaps because the photographer has an exhibition or has published a book, then that is the type of coverage that establishes notability. Online sources can be reliable as long as they meet the reliability standards but many websites simulate reliability without achieving it. They are self-published by amateurs and lack professional editorial control. When citing online sources, page numbers and exact publication dates may be lacking. So be it. Cite as many details about the website as possible: parent company, location, year of publication, and so on. As for the infobox, I recommend focusing on more important matters first: clearly establishing notability and properly formatting your references. I made additional comments on my talk page. Good luck. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Company article layout

Hi! I'm not sure what the format for company articles is. What sections are usually included, and in what order? Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bananasoldier: We have no fast and hard rules for such matters (other than the general layout concepts, such as starting with a lead, references coming before external links, and so on; see here) and each article may develop differently and have different sections depending on the facts peculiar to that topic. You can always look to see if there is a Wikiproject in an area and check whether they have any good advice or even a model article suggesting common sections (but I don't see much that answers your question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies/Guidelines). In general though, it's always useful to look to featured articles in the same subject area and emulate what's done, where it fits. See Wikipedia:Featured articles#Companies. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing articles

How do I remove an article? 400 Lux (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 400 Lux. Only an administrator can actually remove an article, but there are several ways that you can begin the process that may lead to an article's deletion. It depends on how non-compliant the article in question is. Please read our Deletion policy for detailed information. If you mention the specific article, you may well receive a more detailed answer. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is located at Nanogem. I don't think it is real. 400 Lux (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have my doubts that notability has been established, but I do not think that this is a hoax. Please see Roewe Gems Company and Preciosa. You can nominate the article for deletion, or improve it if you wish. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

links on user:dispenser reflinks page not working

Hi, I'd like to report that the links on the user:dispenser reflinks page [2] aren't working. I'm not sure if this is the place to report such a thing, but the link for example http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py leads to a "page not found", as it seems,do many of the links on this previously very useful page. I wonder if you could help, or pass on the message to the appropriate body. Thanks.

Beryl reid fan (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a thread about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 124#Reflinks, looks like toolserver is down for maintenance. Nthep (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Beryl reid fan (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Second opinion re acceptance of AfC article

I have been working on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Café Jacques (band) for some months, and although it has come close, the article has been rejected twice. I have had some really good help from Voceditenore, and I would appreciate it if an experienced editor could have a look at it, please. I would like to know if they think it has a good chance of acceptance, and their thoughts on how it can be improved. Significant changes have been made since it was last rejected.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey CaesarsPalaceDude. I've looked and the article and its sourcing is threadbare. I think what you need more than anything is help finding reliable sources to use. So, there's this, and possibly others found through this search; this and this partial view of a write up in Beat Instrumental & Songwriting & Recording looks like it might have some substantive treatment of the band. You might try asking at WP:RX if anyone can provide you access to that article. Often the most material or even the only material on bands is found in newspaper articles and I bet you could scrounge up significantly more if Google news archive wasn't being revamped. Unfortunately, I no longer have access to newspaperarchive.com or I'd look there. I did find this through Trove though. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
@Hey CaesarsPalaceDude: P.S. try visiting the websites of each of the newspapers listed here, and if they have a search facility, try searching "Café Jacques" (in quotes) as well as "Cafe Jacques" because some will drop or not like the accent. For example I tried the Daily Record and immediately found this article, which is not great but mentions the band and shows potential for others.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Feedback tool disabled

Hi, has the ability to turn on feedback for articles been disabled? Thanks, Matty.007 12:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey! May you clarify on this? ///EuroCarGT 16:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Matty. The article feedback tool project was discontinued this month (March 2014). There's some more information, and links to additional information, at WP:AFT. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. That was a shame, it was a useful tool. Thanks again, Matty.007 16:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source?

After hours slaving over a hot keyboard I might have hit paydirt in the search for references for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Café Jacques (band). Is a Dutch Progressive Rock Page CD review regarded as a reliable secondary source? Thanks to the kind folk who have helped with previous requests.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The reliability of a source is often a matter of interpretation of WP:RS based in large part on the proposed usage of the source (ie what is it sourcing?). In my opinion this source appears to have some kind of editorial oversight [3] and would be OK for non-controversial information. If you would like further opinions you may also now, or in the future, ask for feedback at WP:RSN where people well versed in these kinds of questions give valuable input. I hope that is helpful. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean. It is probably a specialist job. The content is not controversial in any way that I can see, and I have had a look through the guideline (again). I'll take your advice, and refer to those that know; I'm pretty sure I don't. Thanks for your help.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Invitation was received late.

Is there a reason why I did not get an invitation here until about an hour ago? I had to do a lot of copying and pasting to add templates to pages I have been editing hoping they would work since I could not ask how to make them myself. Luckily, there weren't any issues, I am just wondering why I got it so late. AustralianPope (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I am surprised that you refer to receiving the invitation "late", as (according to the information which I can see) your account was created only yesterday. If you do have any specific questions, please do not hesitate to ask here, or to use any of the specific advice sources shown at Help:Contents. I have added a few useful links to your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding Sources to a new page 89.168.56.120 (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I am writing an article about a bridal company and it's had a speedy deletion. I think this is because the sources were not posted correctly. How do i add sources to a wiki page I am creating? The instructions are really unclear on how to do this. Any help much appreciated. Thank you very much, Sophie 89.168.56.120 (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sophie, welcome to the teahouse. Have you read the guide at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sophie, the guidance at WP:REFBEGIN should help you. It also might be a good idea to go through the WP:Article Wizard and create the article through Articles for Creation so other editors can double check the article before it's posted, heavily reducing the chance it will be deleted! Samwalton9 (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Accused of being Sockpuppet

Hi I joined Wikipedia this morning and edited my first article and was immediately accused of being a sock puppet. To Prove this my accuser keeps linking versions of my edit. I went back to it to change spellings. They say this proves im a sock puppet for user Ming. they have reinstated a heavily biased account backed up by a very untrusty worthy source and have removed my account which contained multiple sources. I suspect they are accusing me so as they can alter the article as they wish and then dismiss my contributions as being in breach of Wikipedia rules due to me being a sock puppet. How do I definitively prove I am not a sock puppet ? Thanks Daithicarr (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Daithicarr, welcome to the teahouse. You do not have to prove that you are not a sock puppet; the burden of proof is on the accuser to present evidence that there is reasonable grounds to suspect that someone is using multiple accounts illegitimately. They are required to do this by opening a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and presenting their evidence there. In this case, it will be difficult for them to do so because they seem to have chosen not to edit from a registered account themselves.
The 2014 Crimean Crisis article is a deeply controversial one, so I personally wouldn't edit there if I wanted a quiet wiki-life without people accusing me of things without justification. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It looks to me as though the other party is confused over the appearance of the New editor Getting Started automated edit summary, and since your edits are superficially similar to some edits made yesterday by Owner Ming, they have jumped to the conclusion that you are in fact Owner Ming in a different guise. I have left them a note at the article's talkpage. For my part, I think it is unlikely that you are Owner Ming; I've seen and dealt with enough sockpuppetry in my time here to be unconvinced. My advice would be to ignore it entirely; if a sockpuppet investigation is formally raised then you can answer the accusations there, but in my opinion there isn't enough evidence to start one. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for you're help, I thought I had been declared a sockpuppet , not just accused. It seems I have a lot more to read ABOUT wikipedia rather than just on wikipedia . I only edited because it seemed so glaringly biased. Daithicarr (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

After you sign up

If I sign up for a username, will people be able to see my IP address?--71.167.166.18 (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No! Samwalton9 (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that's good, thanks.--71.167.166.18 (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
It's impossible for regular editors to identify a named editor's IP address if that editor is logged in to their account when they edit. There exists a small subset of experienced and trusted users known as checkusers who are able to identify the IPs used by logged-in editors, but they are only allowed to use these powers under very specific circumstances, and are not allowed to make the results of their investigations public. If you create an account, your IP will be hidden from the rest of us. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

British placenames in infoboxes

Hi there,

I've tried to navigate the Manual of Style and other places, but cannot see an answer to, or discussion of, the question over whether infoboxes favour places of birth ending in UK vs United Kingdom, and the county and country. In short, is the style guide's preference:

  1. Exeter, United Kingdom
  2. Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom
  3. Exeter, Devon, England, United Kingdom

Thanks for any help. JamKaftan (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

JK, welcome to the Teahouse - the most recent discussion on this can be found at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England?. There was no consensus so any of the variations you've listed so use whichever you feel comfortable with. Nthep (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Nthep! JamKaftan (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, although that discussion shows that there are things about which there is not much consensus, it does seem to suggest consensus that using both "England" and "United Kingdom" amounts to clutter. Personally, I think the same applies to "Devon". If someone doesn't know where Exeter is, they probably also don't know where Devon is, so it's not providing much help. Much better to just wikilink Exeter. Formerip (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
If I understand what you are saying correctly, FormerIP, I don't agree. Certainly you should wikilink Exeter, but you should be able to tell at least the country, and preferably the region without having to pick the link. (I have popups enabled, so it gives me a taster of the content of the link when I hover, but not everybody does). --ColinFine (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't saying not to give the country, just that only so much of the postal address is really necessary. I think option (1) above is best, and (3) seems to be against consensus. Formerip (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_189&oldid=1138689148"