Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 264

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 260

←

Archive 262

→

Help with writing a new entry

I am new to Wikipedia and would love some help editing my "talk" page for a new entry. Any experienced wikipedia contributor want to help?

Thanks!

Jonathan

JonathanTrevorCrane (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JonathanTrevorCrane. I have written some biographies of notable photographers, and a bunch of other biographies of artists, so I know what's expected here for acceptable biographies. I also did a little copy editing of your draft. First of all, your draft should not be on your talk page. Instead, it should be in your sandbox, or a draft space page that you can create, or as an Articles for creation page. We have lots of choices for drafts, but your talk page is not a good choice. Your talk page is for conversations with other editors, not for drafting new articles. That's just a minor formatting issue, and I made similar mistakes as a new editor. No worries there.

As for your draft article itself, I always say that it is far better to have 3 to 5 properly formatted references to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, than it is to have 20 to 25 poorly formatted references to self-published sources, passing mentions, blog posts and social media links. Any experienced reviewer will be intensely suspicious of bare URLs. Please emphasize truly independent coverage of the work of this photographer, format the references properly per Referencing for beginners, and copy edit your own work, keeping the Neutral point of view in mind for every paragraph, sentence, phrase and word of your prose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much Cullen for your review of my first entry. I am new to this and would really appreciate any help you can give me in regards to the reference section. After reading wikipedia's terms and conditions it seems that its vitally important to have plenty of references. The references I listed are mainly from very reputable magazines and websites. How should format them? Can you help me organize them and make them solid? Also I read that the sandbox is deleted after 12 hours, so that concerned me - where should I post this where it won't be deleted.

JonathanTrevorCrane (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

JonathanTrevorCrane, YOUR sandbox page, visible on the menu at the top of any page you are on logged in, will be kept forever unless it is disruptive, libelous, racist, or a copyright violation, or clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. The common, public sandbox page is for quick experiments and goofing around. No serious editor uses the public sandbox, which gets cleaned up often.

Plenty of references? Let me restate concisely: Far better a handful of rock-solid independent, reliable sources than a couple of dozen mediocre links to blogs, social media sites, YouTube videos, or websites controlled by the topic. The work to improve the sourcing is primarily yours, though maybe some other volunteer may pitch in. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings @JonathanTrevorCrane: I took a quick look at your page and I wanted to add a couple of things to the good info that @Cullen328: gave you. To start I think you may not have Wiki jargon down yet. The Talk page for any article is a page that is meant to have discussion relevant to that article. For users your User talk page is a general discussion place for you to get and leave messages for other editors. I noticed as of now your talk page: User_talk:JonathanTrevorCrane is set up as an article about yourself. The appropriate place for that info is your User page not your talk page. The other thing is it's not really necessary to have references for your User page as you do now. Most user pages are much more informal and really should be. They aren't supposed to look like Wikipedia articles and shouldn't be confused as such. Finally, if what you are trying to do is eventually create an actual wikipedia article about yourself unfortunately you aren't allowed to do that. That is what Wikipedia considers a wp:conflict of interest --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have misspelled a word in my title

Hello all,

I have just created an article for the director/screenwriter of the highly-acclaimed film Whiplash (as he will likely be up for one or two Oscars). His name is Damien Chazelle but, like a moron, I missed my own typo in the title and called him Damian Chazelle - not Damien. I am so sorry, could somebody fix this for me. It is not immediately very easy to see how one corrects a typo in a title.

Thank you,

Louise

Louise Mensch (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. One moves the page to a new title. Not intuitive, I fear. Fiddle Faddle 18:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed! I appreciate it. Now I am trying to see how to make my references nest under the references line. My cunning plan of copying formatting that seems to work elsewhere has not worked thus far.

thanks so much for changing the title for me that was really embarrassing :)

Louise Mensch (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Opposites

Best way of handling a case when someone's review of a discussion is the opposite of what happened on that discussion? e.g. saying "there was only one argument" when there were about 5 other arguments. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I would bring the discussion back to the talk page, but it would be helpful to see the discussion. What is the article?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that it's Rafah massacre, which is in active arbitration on Talk:Rafah massacre. That's the place to make the comments. I'm not sure that you're getting the person's point, but this discussion is new to me, so I could be missing something. It might be helpful if you were clear on the contention (how you would summarize it, you consider the comic book source to be a reliable source, what sources you think are reliable, other).--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Guideline regarding "distance"

Hello, I was looking to see if there were any guidelines regarding showing the distance between two cities (source, template), etc. and I'm not seeing anything. Do you know if I can just use Google maps? Or, something else? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Carole, so nice to see you again. When I recently wrote this I wondered the same. I looked through loads of answers at the reference desk and they all pointed to this: Great-circle distance, which gave me a headache, so I used Google maps and no-one objected. Best, w.carter-Talk 20:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, good to see you again, too. Your response made me laugh - I have so been there myself at times. Sounds like google maps is a good approach. I wouldn't normally worry, but its for an article that I want to have listed as a Good article, so I was just trying to dot-my-Is-and cross-my-Ts. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

How to fix non-working external links?

I'd like to replace two no-longer-working external links on the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe page with the current working URLs. On the edit page the links are currently in brackets and have an asterisk in front of each. Can I simply paste the correct URL over the bad URL, with the correct URLs still in the brackets and also leaving the asterisk in front of each? There are also a couple bad links in the "Notes" section, but when I click "edit" there, the current URLs aren't shown--all I see is "reflist." How are links in the "Notes" section corrected? Is there somebody I can notify to correct them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkybirdForever (talk • contribs) 02:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello SkybirdForever and welcome to the Teahouse. You are quite right, the external links have really gone sour. And yes, you can exchange the nonexistent urls with the correct ones. Just be sure to keep the single space between the link and the description of it, otherwise it will not perform correctly. As for your other concerns please post them in detail on the talk page of the article and someone working on the article may come along and help you with it. I will be keeping an eye on the page for you as well. References are a bit tricky, you can read about how they work here: Help:Referencing for beginners. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi W.carter, Hope this is the right way to respond to you! Thank you so much for your help! By the time I got back to the Ute Mountain Ute page somebody else had already fixed those two links. [I went to your user page yesterday to "check you out," and when I clicked on the "this" link I wound up on an American Indian page--and spent the rest of the day going from link to link to link... Yeah! Lots of references, but I found some really good stuff! ] But I fixed the same broken link on the Ute People page today, so I do for sure know how to do it now! I know there are other pages with the same non-working links, and as I find them I'll keep fixing them! I'm going to post on the UMU article talk page about the non-working links in the Notes section, but it doesn't look like there's been anybody around there for quite a while. Will somebody see it? (Really have no idea at all how all this works!) I'm trying really hard right now to not get addicted to this place, but I do have some other questions, so may I post them on your talk page when I have time--probably within the next couple weeks? Thanks again for your help! I'm a Little Olde Lady (Think: Age of Fortran!), and most of the stuff (coding) around here looks like Greek to me! SkybirdForever (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello SkybirdForever, I'm so glad I could be of help. I am going to leave you some notes on your talk page, and you are always welcome to ask questions at mine. And, I too remember Fortran. :) All the best, w.carter-Talk 21:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of small piece I added

Hello:

Under SYMMETRY, a short explanatory section has twice been removed. It is valid, particularly as it is counter-intuitive. It had two "classy" references.

A problem I had was inserting refs, which were wrongly entered by me.

I don't see how to add a reference to the numbered list at the end.

I'd also like to know why my contribution was removed.

I had previously been a member, and that seemed to end spontaneously, so I renewed my membership with a new identity. Malc9141 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Malc, welcome to the Teahouse. Try reading through Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and let us know if it helps. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings @Malc9141: I took a quick look at the change you made to symmetry. I think a problem was that the text you added was not very clear, at least to me and I have a pretty good understanding of the basic ideas of mathematical symmetry. It interrupted the flow of the article. Essentially my judgement (and I'm guessing the judgement of @Chiswick Chap: the person who reverted your edit) was that the article was much clearer before the edit you made. All these things are of course judgement calls. When this happens if someone reverts your edit if you disagree with their reason you can start a dialogue with them on the talk page of the article. For Symmetry the talk page is here: Talk:Symmetry In this case my opinion is that Chiswick Chap was correct to revert your edit. Don't feel bad though, we all have to learn and learning by doing is one of the best methods. Cheers. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Malc9141, another factor is that you added this material to the lead section. The purpose of the lead is to summarize material in the body of the article, so if you want to add new material you should start by adding it to the body. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello to Chiswick Chap, MadScientistXII, RockMagnetist,

First, I agree about the introduction perhaps not being the best place for a qualifying idea such as I put.

I also agree from a purely mathematical view, my comment doesn't fit.

But I think it is very very important, nonetheless. If Wikipedia is to be accessible, it should not be arcane. I wonder if Chiswick Chap feels the Article should be Purely Quantitative.

The reason I say my point is important is twofold. In common articles about, say, the Higgs boson, we read about "symmetry being broken". In fact this refers to phase change and is utterly counter-intuitive to a lay reader. The scientific use of "symmetry" needs explaining, not dressing up. Second, I suggest that two major mathematicians, one a CERN scientist, writing about this, are qualified to make the point which I have taken up.

How say you?

Malc9141 (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Malc9141Malc9141 (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Malc9141: Sorry we didn't get back to you right away on the follow up question. On the specific question about symmetry, this isn't the place to discuss that and I don't really have enough deep knowledge to comment. But oh hell it's so interesting I'm going to comment anyway ;-) My understanding is that when they say "symmetry is broken" it doesn't mean that the mathematical concept of symmetry is "broken" in any sense but rather it's a shorthand way of saying that random fluctuations or some other external process has intervened to disrupt whatever was maintaining symmetry in the system under discussion. IMO how much you need to explain those details is really dependent on the article and the section in the article. For something like symmetry my preference would usually be to assume that if you don't at least know some math to begin with you aren't really going to get the idea of symmetry anyway and better not to throw in a lot of explanatory text that will put off most of the potential readers of the article. But I can understand having the other point of view. I've often argued the other way on other articles, that they have too much jargon and need to say things more clearly for a lay reader. It really all depends. Sorry, know that's not very helpful. In any case the place to have the discussion you initiated up above is on the Talk page of the symmetry article: Talk:Symmetry These kinds of discussions are exactly the kind that are supposed to go on there, questions about what is or is not appropriate in the article, does a reference really support the text it is next to, how much technical depth vs. high level overview explanation, all those kinds of discussions about each article go on the talk page of the article. The idea is to achieve a consensus on the talk page when there is a disagreement between editors and then use that consensus to guide further editing. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks MadScientist. I have asked Chiswick Chap about the removal. I think my simple addition is still worthwhile though I'd be happy for an expert to make the point for me. Even your friendly reply to me suggests the apparent paradox (that I tried to clarify) remains.

It is not advanced maths to get the point that a random mixture is the same however you look at it (and is therefore maximally symmetric) and the more order you put into it, therefore, the more restricted the symmetry. This is what is so unexpected to the lay person. And expert mathematicians (whom I quoted) say as much. It explains the (arguably misleading) term Broken Symmetry (these experts prefer Changed, or Hidden, Symmetry). So I strongly take your second view. But I strongly dislike additions which vulgarise science. MalcMalc9141 (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Spamming by Anonymous user

Hi,

In the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pavlina, someone it adding an external link which is inappropriate for the article. I reverted the edit, but that person undid my revision. It happened twice. So i contacted him in talk page, since it is just an IP address, i am not sure whether he sees my message or not.

How to deal with such people?

Thank you Ashok (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ashok. You did the right thing, except that once the IP started edit warring (by re-adding the link you removed) you should not have continued the war. I have given a fuller warning on the IP's talk page. If they continue, then you could take it to dispute resolution; but I agree that their editing is disruptive, and I would suggest posting to WP:ANI if it continues. --ColinFine (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I just like to know how to report someone to dispute resolution. Do I need to add any code or something? Ashok (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ashok I'm guessing you already know about dispute resolution noticeboard. Before reporting a dispute to dispute resolution noticeboard you have to discuss the relevant matter on article's talk page. If the argument keep getting more complicated then you can report it--Chamith (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Ashok (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

adding images and userboxes

I was wondering how to add images and\or userboxes to my userpage.I looked them up but got even more cofused. if someone could give a short step-by-step explanation that would be nice. Quiet Wanderer (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

HELLO Quiet Wanderer, welcome to teahouse.If you type [[image:Flag of Nepal.jpg|thumb]], this will create

This image has already been uploaded in wiki.You can add image (those have already been uploaded) in similar way.Jojolpa (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Quiet Wanderer. Working on your own user page is a good way to learn how to handle images anywhere on Wikipedia. Feel free to experiment. Every userbox has a piece of code that generates it. Every image available on Wikimedia Commons has a file name associated with it. If you copy and paste the userbox code to your page, it will generate and display the userbox. Similarly, if you add the image file name, properly formatted, it will display the image. A good way to learn is to study the wikicode on another editor's user page, to learn how the userboxes and images are formatted. I have both on my user page. Take a look at the code I have written, and feel free to copy and modify any of it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Quiet Wanderer:Hey, there are tons of userboxes on Wikipedia. Because they were created by editors just like you. As there are many userboxes they are categorized into subsections. All you have to do is visit userbox gallery, find userboxes that describes you and then paste the template code to your userpage. To add a self-portrait (taken by you) to your userpage first you have to upload it to Wikimedia commons under own-work copyright license. Then write the name of image you uploaded on your userpage just like Jojolpa mentioned.Hope this helps--Chamith (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you all. I try it today. again thanks for the tips Quiet Wanderer (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

notification

if i type two times user:PrimeHunter,primehunter will get two notifications ,won't he? second question is that ,extra large page cannot be properly included in my edit box!Jojolpa (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I assume you only get one notification if the same edit links your userpage twice like User:Jojolpa, User:Jojolpa. Please clarify your second question. Do you mean your browser or editing device cannot edit pages with too many kilobytes of source text? PrimeHunter (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:,what if i write so many user:PrimeHunter in different sections of the same page.how will you be notified. And yep,my browser doesn't allow me to include all text of extra large page.Jojolpa (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

As expected I only got one notification about the above edit which linked me twice. I don't know what would happen if there were mentions in different sections. See Wikipedia:Article size#If you have problems editing a long article. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jojolpa and welcome to the Teahouse! The notification you are talking about is WP:echo. If you include a link to another person's userpage, and sign your post, the other person will receive a notification. For you second question, I am assuming you are talking about the size limit of the edit summary. It is around 250. See Help:Edit_summary#The_250_character_limit for a more detailed explanation. Cheers, ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 16:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

how do i paste picture?

please help me i can't seem to paste a picture please give me some steps

3 cupcake1075 :3 11:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupcake1075 (talk • contribs)

Hey Cupcake1075, If you are trying to paste a picture from another website to Wikipedia it's not possible. First you have to upload that picture to Wikipedia through file upload wizard. And there are certain copyright policies and image policies applies to Wikipedia. You better read image use policies before uploading your pictures. User Yunshui wrote an essay in order to help beginners. You can read it here--Chamith (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse @Cupcake1075: IMO one of the hardest things for new editors to get right away is how different images are on Wikipedia than on most other sites such as Facebook. For legal reasons Wikipedia has to be much more conservative about how we allow images to be used and the legalities about copyright for images can be complicated. However, the good news is that there are a LOT of images that have already been through the coypright approval process. Those images are stored in the Wikipedia commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page It's a companion database to the actual encyclopedia. You can search it just like you can search the encyclopedia and any image you find there can be used in Wikipedia. There will be links on the image that you can click on to give you the code snippet you need to insert that image into an article or other Wikipedia file. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cupcake1075! I am relatively new here as well and the Wikimedia site does have quite a few images you can use. There is quite a bit to search and if you have an image to upload, as long as it adheres to the policy listed, you should be ok. I just uploaded am image I took from vacation and it was very quick and I used it for my guest introduction. Hope this helps! Andrew Thiessen (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding a link to a specific section of a wikipedia article

How can I add a link to a specific section of a wikipedia article, rather than the whole article without it being shown as an external link? Gmk7 (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Gmk7: You can append a hashtag and the name of the section to the end of the article name. For example, Blueberry#Origins will link to the "Origins" section of the Blueberry article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmk7 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Move protection

What does the move protection protect against? Zafiraman (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Zafiraman: Move protection prevents editors from moving a page to a new title. Once move protected, a page can only be moved by an administrator. Check out WP:MOVP for more details. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok thank you my friend Zafiraman (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you allowed to leave some short entries of copyrighted material with citations in talk pages for others to view and discuss how the material should be paraphrased for the main article?

Bboyjkang2 (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a tough question, Bboyjkang2. How "short" is short? If it is only a sentence or two, then that passage can be quoted in the article, with quotation marks and a citation. There is no copyright issue. If the passage is so long that it would be a copyright violation in the article, then it is a violation on the talk page. You can link to a lengthy passage on a copyright compliant website, for discussion purposes, instead of copying it here. You can also loosely paraphrase and summarize yourself, as that is one of the most important editing skills here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that I’m going to post a link to an unlisted Google Doc.

Another option could be Pastebin.

I might put a tiny sample of the copyrighted material, or a few sentences on the talk page so that people know what to expect from the Google Docs link.

Are talk pages even crawled by search engines?

I don’t think that I’ve ever seen a talk page appear in a search engine. Bboyjkang2 (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Darn.

Talk pages do show up.Bboyjkang2 (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I might use something like the Reddit text editor to put right leading right angle brackets (close angle brackets) at the beginning of each line to additionally skew the copyrighted sample.Bboyjkang2 (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Bboyjkang2. If you post the large quantities of copyrighted material on another website without permission, then that is a copyright violation. Wikipedia does not allow external linking to known copyright violations. Please be cautious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Side note: Talk pages may not be spidered by Google, but I have seen my sandbox appear on the Google search engine. I was not happy with that. So I no longer leave things in my sandbox that could be misconstrued as an article.

Bfpage |leave a message 23:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)