Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 272

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 265 ← Archive 270 Archive 271 Archive 272 Archive 273 Archive 274 Archive 275

Major Edits to Existing Article

Hi all. I just did some pretty massive edits on the Corporate farming page and wanted to get some opinions on it. If you do check it out, I preemptively apologize for my mess on the history page. I'm still figuring out the whole editing thing and jumped the gun a few times on the save button...

Thanks! Creigpat (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Creigpat! If you are looking for input from farming experts, you may wish to also post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, for Corporate farming article if you can click on View history to see changes I did to help. I added a 'See also' section and the Agriculture footer. My background is dairy farming so I'm not able to add to content. IMO Wikipedia is a great for learning new things...good luck!
Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

adding text with footnotes to existing articles

I plan to add several paragraphs with footnotes to an existing article. Will the new material integrate itself automatically, or do I need to take steps to add references and notes? Thank you.TBR-qed (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TBR-qed. Study the wikicode of the existing page, and emulate how previous editors have formatted their references. If you do so carefully, then your new material and its references will be incorporated into the article when you hit "save". You may find Referencing for beginners to be useful.
The syntax, or how the references are formatted, is critical. A misplaced or missing punctuation character will foul everything up. So, be precise. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Handy hint! Use the preview button! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC).
@TBR-qed: To answer a slightly different interpretation of your question, if you add new citations between <ref>...</ref> tags, the numbering and order in the references section of pre-existing inline citations will seamlessly change to match the new world order; you need change nothing in the references section if some manifestation of {{reflist}} or <references /> exists there. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Templates

I am trying to set up a practice page and I need to create an infobox template. I don't understand how to do this.Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Philipnelson99 to Teahouse! If you want to setup a practice page for an template, you may want to start of at your userspace sandbox. To do this, head to this link, insert the template content/code in the text box, preview it and save it. Remember a sandbox is a test field, not the actual template namespace. ///EuroCarGT 04:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The Walking Dead game the best game of all time

would you consider The Walking Dead (video game) eligible for wiki's Best games of all time list?Tinzilla5 (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tinzilla5. Wikipedia doesn't maintain a list of "best games of all time," if only because we don't maintain such an article. Also, as editors, we can't make claims about what games are good or not based on anything except for what reliable sources say. Are you referring to a different article? We do have an article on List of best-selling video games, and if The Walking Dead has sources that show that it has the titles there, it would be appropriate to include there. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
@Tinzilla5: Welp, I stand corrected: List of video games considered the best. My point above still stands though, in that you would need multiple, reliable sources (like IGN, Gamespot, Metacritic, G4, etc) to explicitly make such a claim. I'd recommend you check out the talk page at the article to see if you can gather consensus on the issue. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Improvements made to a previously deleted article

Hello Teahouse! I've found a recently created article that was previously deleted as a result of the most recent AfD discussion about it.

Speedy deletion criterion WP:G4 applies to those articles that are "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.". My question is: how can I see whether the article has been improved or not? The article history contains only the edits of the new version.

Also, on an unrelated note, would you consider the result of this Copyvio check something compatible with a WP:G12 speedy deletion criterion? Thanks! ► LowLevel (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, LowLevel73, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you wish to see the deleted version of the article, you will have to ask an administrator, as only administrators can access deleted pages. If you wish to see whether your article has significantly improved since the last deletion, I suggest that you take a look at the discussion of the last AfD and see whether the arguments made in that discussion is valid to the current page or not. If it's not, then you can say so on the article talk page.
For the Copyvivo check, I think that the article can be definitely improved by copyediting, but won't meet the G12 criterion for 'unambiguous copyright infringement.' Regards. KJ Discuss? 07:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello KJ, thanks for the answer(s). If I've understood correctly, only the administrators have the ability to make an actual comparison between the two versions of the article, while editors might only infer (at best) a possible improvement, since they have no access to the deleted version. Is it correct? ► LowLevel (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
LowLevel73 I believe so, but the editor(s) who tagged it for CSD may be those who saw the previous version before the deletion. KJ Discuss? 08:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Article for creation

Hello, if I was to create an article on Khaled Sharrouf it does not seem possible as after searching it says the article is already created (but it is a redirection to a section in an article - only). So I have two questions : A) how do you find the redirect page, when the work is done to modify the redirect page? B) And the second question is how do I go around creating a page that says it does already exist? Thank you for your help. — Ludopedia(Talk) 17:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Howdy, Ludopedia. To locate and see the redirect, look under 'Tools' in the navigation bar on the left side of the page and click on 'What links here'. Scan down the page looking for redirects, then click on the redirect's link. That will take you to the redirect page. If Khaled Sharrouf is notable for reasons other than the incident, you could just edit the redirect page, placing the article over the redirect. Once that is done, you would then add a template {{main|Khaled Sharrouf}} directly under the heading of the section targeted by the old redirect. Hope that helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 17:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh this is great. Thank you so much for your help, I really appreciate. Have a great day   ! — Ludopedia(Talk) 18:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

New article for existing wiki -- advice please

I am an independent writer/editor and I've been enlisted by the estate of composer Norman Cazden to rewrite and significantly expand his wikipedia article (this is my profession, I am not affiliated with the Cazden family). I am struggling with whether it would be best to term this a major edit or ask that it replace the old one. I have researched, referenced, and cited as vigorously as possible. I am utterly confused about how to add a disambiguation template/page to the working article. As may be evident, this is my first article for Wikipedia. I have been working hard to do it right, but am stuck on aspects such as the disambiguation and how to submit it properly. Would someone kindly advise me? Stasmaam (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stasmaam. As a paid editor, you have a clear conflict of interest. I recommend that you read the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Briefly, you should make no changes directly to the article itself. You should propose changes on the article's talk page so that they can be reviewed and possipossibly implemented by other disinterested editors. You should declare your COI on your user page or the article's talk page. I recommend both. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Stasmaam. I looked at the Norman Cazden article; it definitely needs improvement. The article was translated from the German Wikipedia article in 2012 but was never edited to comply with standards and guidelines of the English Wikipedia. I added a {{WikiProject Composers}} template to the article's talk page. Wikiproject Composers would be a good place to find an independent Wikipedia editor with no conflict of interest but an interest in musical composers with whom to collaborate in improving the article. That project also provides a recommended structure for Wikipedia articles about composers and some help in establishing the notability of composers. Look at the article about Bradley Joseph, one of Wikipedia's featured articles, as an example of how to write about a composer. Since you most likely have personal contact with family members, you may be able to obtain and upload a photograph that is free of copyright restrictions to include in an Template:Infobox classical composer. To see the code that formats an article like Bradley Joseph, just click on the 'Edit' tab. You can even copy-and-paste the code into a draft in your sandbox, substituting information about Norman Cazden. After making the changes in your sandbox, use the 'Preview' button to be sure it looks right. If not, come back with specific questions and I or another will help you got the coding right. Even though Wikipedians are suspicious of paid editors with a conflict of interest, you can often provide information that otherwise might not be available. For example, Cazden or his family probably kept copies or clipping of articles about him. Many of those articles from print magazines won't be available on-line and would be difficult for a biographer to locate without the help of the subject's family. I hope you find this helpful. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 03:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Another option would be to create a one-page website, entitled something like "In Memory of Norman Cazden" and upload your article there. Feel free to use anything you like from our articles. Put a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License at the end of your article. The family would get their professionally written article, with the advantage that it would never change, which can't be said of Wikipedia. And any of our editors would be free to simply cut and paste your article to Wikipedia, replacing the one we have now. IMO this would be a much more transparent procedure than working behind the scenes with other editors so that they could upload what you write. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Roman Catholic or Catholic?

An editor is on a rampage, removing all traces of the term "Roman Catholic" from articles. Isn't there some sort of WP policy, guideline, or WP:MOS entry that deals with this? 32.218.43.59 (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No, there isn't a policy specifically for that, but he needs to get consensus. You can go ahead and revert those changes. The editor has been warned twice on his talk page. You can warn him once more, and suggest that he read Talk:Catholic Church/Name and Roman Catholic (term) and Wikipedia:Consensus. If it continues, you can report it at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which will probably lead to a block. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, so I reverted as you suggested, and now I'm being labeled a vandal. Thanks. 32.218.43.59 (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
1) The other editor might get blocked for disruption, not vandalism. 2) No one called you a vandal. 3) Some of your reverts are ill-considered. [1] --NeilN talk to me 00:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You're not being labeled a vandal, but their changes aren't vandalism either. You have been making wholesale changes to articles (much more than simply changing "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic", often with dubious sources, and the only edit summary you give is "rv old vandalism". Changing "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic" is fine, but as was noted on your talk page (which you just removed without comment)... you need to provide an accurate edit summary. Vertium When all is said and done 00:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
OK...this isn't just a content dispute but one in which accurate information MUST be kept tightly informed and perhaps even controlled. We cannot allow any editor to run rough shot through a people's religion. Have some respect for god's sake. See this.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Good point, Mark, so let me clarify my statement. Changing from "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic" is fine, provided there's evidence that the individual does indeed subscribe to that section of the Catholic Church. My comment is more about the editor's frequent changing of other content he claims is vandalism, that is not. I strongly encourage him to read the guidance on vandalism and provide better edit summaries. BTW, the above link to the discussion on Catholicism is quite informative. Vertium When all is said and done 00:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

free licence

what is free licence of a photo ?i am asked it in WP:FFU.would anyone like to reply soon,please? Jojolpa (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jojolpa. One of Wikipedia's fundamental principles is that Wikipedia is free content. All edits submitted to Wikipedia are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. This "free license" allows anyone to share, modify, and distribute Wikipedia content freely, subject to certain conditions. Without the free license, a work would be protected by copyright, barring users from modifying or distributing it. A free license does away with certain aspects of copyright, while still retaining a few key parts of it. Text submitted to Wikipedia is automatically made available under this license, but Wikipedia frequently borrows images that were not necessarily originally created by the editor who uploads them.
We have a rather strict image use policy that states what types of images are acceptable for Wikipedia. To hold true to the "free content" principle, we cannot accept images that are not made available under a free content license. In other words, one cannot simply take any random photograph from the Internet and use it in a Wikipedia article without first confirming whether or not the owner of the image has made it available under a free license. For a list of acceptable free licenses, see WP:ICT/FL. There are certain exceptions to this policy that allow you to upload non-free content to Wikipedia; however, the non-free content has to satisfy all of the criteria listed at WP:NFCC. If you took a photo yourself and would like to donate it to Wikipedia, you must first make it available under a free license.
As a logged-in user, you have the ability to upload images yourself, without the need for WP:FFU. I recommend using Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, as it will help guide you into making an informed decision over whether or not your image is acceptable for Wikipedia or not. If you are still confused, just leave a follow-up response and I or another host will be happy to clarify. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jojolpa. Let me give you a very brief answer: A free license is permission from the copyright owner (for a photograph that's almost always the photographer) that allows anyone to reuse the photo anywhere for anything (including modification commercial use). I hope that helps. —teb728 t c 04:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Nina Allan.....

Can someone please grade the article Nina Allan..thanksS.tollyfield (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, S.tollyfield. Another editor has rated the article "C class". Here are a few suggestions for improvement:
Brief quotations should be designated by quotation marks, not by italics. External links, in this case to her website, should not be in the body of the article. Linking to her website is fine in the infobox and a separate "External links" section at the end. The generic photos of a spider, a watch and dog racing to illustrate her interests do not seem appropriate to me. A portrait of her would be better. Please fill out your references with author, publication, date of publication and so on. You may find Referencing for beginners to be useful in that effort. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I wish I had a picture of Nina Allan I could use - but getting one and the permission to use it is almost impossible.S.tollyfield (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

new user help with uploads and splitting

how can I upload photos? and how do I split the users into a list rather than seperating via semi colon? thanks CCB Centre of Sporting Excellence is the Page Morgans11 (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

CCB Centre for Sporting Excellence
Hello Morgans11, welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. One way to create a list is to put each entry on a separate line beginning with : and no leading space. Or to create a bulleted list begin with * instead of :. I hope that is clear enough. —teb728 t c 08:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
As for photos, see Help:Files for an overview of how to upload and use them. —teb728 t c 08:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Your account has to be four days old before you upload photos to Wikipedia, but you can already upload photos to Commons. —teb728 t c 08:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Change screen displayed when you click on images

I can't stand the screen you get when you click on images. I like the view you get when you click on "more details". Is there a way to change a setting somewhere so that when I click on an image it goes straight to the "more details" view? Thank you. HalfGig talk 13:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi HalfGig, welcome to the Teahouse. Media Viewer is controversial. You can disable it at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank YOU! I can't stand that view. HalfGig talk 13:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Historical Telegram

I did some research on my grandfathers military records. I have the actual telegram sent by the admiralty to the crew of H/120 squadron congratulating them on the sinking of U-200 on June 24th, 1943. Im not a programmer but was wondering if someone within the Wiki community would like to add it to either the 120 squadron wiki page, the U-200 page or both174.5.192.88 (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi IP 174, what a fascinating piece of military history you have! Unfortunately it wouldn't be of any use to Wikipedia, because the telegram is an original document so to use it here would be what we call 'original research'. Original research isn't allowed on Wikipedia. However, I'm sure there are plenty of other people - museums, newspapers, historians - who would be interested in seeing it. All the best! Sionk (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello user with an IP and welcome to the Teahouse. While it is true that this is a primary source and the text itself cannot be used in an article, there might be a way to include it in the article as an illustration. If you take a picture of the telegram and upload it on the Commons (like this telegram, and several others). Use the "Upload file" in the left column. After uploading it, you can post a message + the https:... for the picture on the article's talk page and see if there is any interest of including that picture in the article. Best, w.carter-Talk 02:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

anachronisms. Compile a list

Hi

I read quite a lot and its common - almost invariable - that modern authors make an "anachronatic" error. I think it would useful to authors if we compiled a list as we noticed them.

A common one is referring to common plastic items before they were available. Another is items in the home before they were available. Or TV satellite images before they existed.

Good idea? Bad idea?

MalcMalc9141 (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Malc9141: Hey Malc9141. Great idea... in general; bad idea... for Wikipedia use. Because of what Wikipedia, is – an encyclopedia, which summarizes existing mainstream knowledge about a topic – it does not publish original research. An encyclopedia is, by its nature, a tertiary source that provides a survey of information already the subject of publication in the wider world (which we provide here through citation to existing sources verifying that existing mainstream knowledge). Even though I think this has no place here, I actually would be a consumer if you posted it somewhere else. I spot these myself and would find a list of them fascinating. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I am a Louisiana Historian I just started creating a series on historic plantation home of Louisiana and I feel I am being a bit bullied

I am a Louisiana Historian I just started creating a series on historic plantation home of Louisiana and I feel I am being a bit bullied, I cite sources and all of the home I am working on are part of the National Historic Register, but my work is criticized for not being important enough. Every building on the National Historic Register of the United States is important. rmistrotRmistrot (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rmistrot. Sorry that you've had a rough time getting started on your articles, but this is not an uncommon experience. I haven't looked at all the articles, but looking over Rene Beauregard House, one important issue was that parts of the article came directly from one of the sources, with is a copyright violation. This concern supercedes all other concerns about whether the topic should be included as an article. I've gone ahead and rephrased the problematic sections.
As for the buildings, if they are in the NHRP, that is usually a sufficient claim for inclusion, which we call notability. The NHRP should maintain a listing online, so just referencing to that should be fine. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
There are also many other copyright problems with large parts of the article being copied and pasted from two ther sources here [2] and here [3] Theroadislong (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
@Theroadislong: Thanks for catching these. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Rmistrot, and welcome, both to the Teahouse, and to editing Wikipedia. Your expertise as an historian is respected here, and we very much hope that you will continue contributing. But you also need to understand and respect our social norms. Experienced, committed editors here are fervently opposed to copyright violations because of our dedication to providing truly free knowledge to all of humanity. Copyrighted material is not free and must be used here only in very limited ways. Properly cited brief quotes within quotation marks are permissible under Wikipedia's policies and the legal concept of fair use. Unattributed "copy and paste" copyright violations are not permitted, and will be removed when detected, without exception. This is not bullying. This is compliance with policy, and is not negotiable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

civic education

Discuss the officials of public service — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.46.81 (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for coming to the Teahouse. First, questions about general knowledge and facts are better handled at the reference desk, whereas the Teahouse is more appropriate for questions about editing and contributing to Wikipedia. Second, your question is a little unspecific. What country? And discuss what? Be sure to provide enough detail for your question to be answered, or it may not be at all. Take care, I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Article as an advertisment

Hello. We have trouble with an article posted in English. It was translated from Russian into English and the following announce has appeared: "This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (August 2014)" What should we do? Many tnx for help Jazzfille (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jazzfille. Firstly I could give more specific help if you linked to the page you are referring to. For advertisement problems in general, Wikipedia should be written from a neutral point of view which means not describing a subject in an overly positive (or negative) way. In the case that an article has been deemed too promotional/advertisement-like, the problems could be one or more of many, but are likely to be largely due to the subject being written about in too positive a manner. Other problems might include listing products or services that the subject would be interested in advertising, or leaving out negative coverage. For a full description of what is deemed 'advertising' on Wikipedia please have a read of WP:NOTADVERTISING. Hope that helps, Sam Walton (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:EDITWAR

I have been told "Please do not WP:EDITWAR." My original edit was referenced. It has been been removed twice - neither "reason" for the revert mentions any issue with the contents. My perception is that the first accusses me of being a spammer (untrue); the second accuses me of being an "Edit Warrior"; this kind angers me. How do I deal with this?

Finally having initiated a talk page discussion I feel the conversation is too personalised, insinuating that (1) I do not know what I am talking about (2) The folks working here need to agree that this is a useful addition - I thought my edit alone meant I was working here. How do I join this exclusive club? Stacie Croquet (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stacie, well, I agree it takes two to "edit war" and the other editor seems to have leapt in with both feet. However, I can understand why the other editor thought this was some form of advertising. A leaflet inside a product in your medicine cabinet isn't a great source at all. Better still would be a more widely available published source, such as an academic journal article. I'm not an expert at all in drugs or chemistry, but I'm guessing from the response of the other editor that it is incorrect to draw general conclusions from a single medical product. Maybe it is a simple solution to explain politely to the other editor you had no intention to "edit war" and start a discussion about the specific paragraph/fact. Sionk (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Stacie Croquet, welcome to the teahouse. In addition to the good info that Sionk gave you, I wanted to reply to your comment: " I thought my edit alone meant I was working here". That's not the way Wikipedia works. No one owns any articles and everyone is free to edit anyone else's work. Wikipedia editors disagree all the time. The way we resolve the disagreements is by conversations on Talk pages. The way you "join the club" is to become more familiar with Wikipedia policies so that you can have better arguments to convince other editors that your edit is correct. If another editor was making a personal attack on you they weren't following policies about Wikipedia:Civility. There are various ways to resolve disputes by bringing in third parties when two editors can't agree. However, before you can start to use those dispute resolution tools you need to make a good faith effort to work things out yourself with the other editor on the talk page of the article. Also, keep in mind that while being rude, calling people names, etc. is definitely not acceptable Wikipedia behavior just telling someone they are wrong is not a personal attack. At least in the one interaction I looked at on the talk page you linked to here: Talk:Glucocorticoid the other user Jytdog was being perfectly civil in their response and the way they tried to communicate why they thought your edit was not appropriate. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

check the page before publishing

Hello, I'm building a page about an artist but I want to be sure that what I'm doing is fine according to the wikipedia's rules,since I'm still a beginner, where should I move the page before I'll publish it so it will be checked from users with more experience? Thank you in advance Krokamaora (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Krokamaora, do you mean User:Krokamaora/sandbox? If you can see a "Review (AFCH)" option on one of the drop down lists at the top of the draft, you can submit it to Articles for Creation (AFC) yourself. Otherwise it will be an easy job for someone here to do it for you. However, for your draft to stand any chance of being successfully moved to main article space, you'll need to make sure the subject has been covered by multiple reliable, independnent sources (e.g. newspapers, magazines, books etc.). Sionk (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Krokamaora. If you feel the page is ready to be reviewed, put {{subst:submit}} at the top of it. The review process is very backlogged so it could take several weeks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Krokamaora. Just to add to the good info given above, one other thing you can do, is... just what you did do ;-) post a comment here and ask teahouse hosts to take a quick look at your work. The feedback you get from that usually won't be as detailed as when you submit the article for review but it will probably happen more quickly and it will at least let you know right away if there are major issues with the article before you try to submit it. If you do that it's best to leave a link to your sandbox or wherever the draft article is to make sure everyone is on the same page. It sounds right now as if you don't have any references in the article at all. I suggest you read this article: Wikipedia:references for beginners. Also, here is an overview of what makes a good Wikipedia article: wp:42 --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Potential article title change

Hi - I'm wondering if Glass Flowers should be retitled. Right now the majority of the article is about the Ware Collection of Blaschka Glass Models of Plants at Harvard, with a short section on the Blaschkas' marine invertebrates (mostly a list of the museums which have invertebrates in their collections) and no real information about Blaschka flowers in other collections. The title Glass Flowers seems a little vague - there are a lot of glass flowers not made by the Blaschkas, and there are other Blaschka glass flowers outside of the Harvard collection. It looks like the article was titled Blaschka glass flowers at some point, but the name was changed because the Ware collection was most commonly referred to as the Glass Flowers (see this talk page). A search for "glass flowers" does turn up The Glass Flowers Collection (title of the Harvard website) and The Glass Flowers (an article about the Ware collection from the Corning Museum of Glass website), but it also turns up a lot of other sites for glass flowers (mostly flowers for sale). Perhaps this article could be retitled The Glass Flowers Collection or The Glass Flowers Collection at Harvard? I'm happy to make the change, but wanted to ask for opinions first (is there a better place to ask when the change shouldn't be too controversial?). Thanks in advance! extabulis (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi extabulis, thanks for your question. It's an interesting situation you present here. Although glass flowers as a concept seem to go beyond the particular collection at Harvard, it also seems like the most prominent of them belong to this collection. For now, I would wait a few days to see what others say at the article talk page in the section you have started there. Here are a couple of other considerations:
(Other hosts, please feel free to add in if you have a different perspective.) Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, I JethroBT. I'll wait to see if anyone else joins the conversation. I agree with your other suggestions, and thanks for pointing out Artificial flowers#Glass - I hadn't seen that page yet! extabulis (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Genieo and MacKeeper pages on Wikipedia should and must be removed

Stephanebosch79 (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)As a technician on MacOSX for more than 20 years now, working in different school and users I’m officially asking you to please remove the MacKeeper page or to remove any article telling people this product is good.

Since it has been released, I saw a lot of my users installing it and getting issues more and more until the hard drive breaks, internet stop working and many awful side effects on the computer. This software is a scam and should be removed from internet.

I please beg you to stop advertising this to people, lots of people in my school showed me your page saying they installed it because even wikipedia says it’s a good product but IT IS NOT ! It’s a malware like Genieo and breaks Mac computers.

Thanks in advance for your help.

If you don’t trust my email, please do some researches on the internet you’ll very quickly see other users / technician alerting to remove it as soon as possible.

Best Regards Stéphane Bösch KLAS IT AdministratorStephanebosch79 (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Stephanebosch79. The proper place for you to express your concerns about Mackeeper are on the Mackeeper talk page: Talk:MacKeeper An article on Wikipedia does not imply that Wikipedia promotes or endorses the subject of the article. Also, articles are meant to be wp:neutral so if any article reads like an advertisement for a product that article is not consistent with Wikipedia policies and needs to be changed. I took a quick look at the Mackeeper article and it didn't seem that promotional to me. There already is a section: MacKeeper#Criticism_of_marketing_techniques that goes into some of the negatives about the company. Feel free to express your concerns on the Talk page in more detail. One thing you should know though is that what counts most on Wikipedia is not who you are and what you know but what kind of references you can site to back up what you say. So rather than say "I know this because of my X number of years as a Mac admin" it is much more convincing to say "as documented in sources X, Y, and Z Mackeeper has the following issues..." And the more X,Y, and Z are what Wikipedia considers wp:reliable sources the better your argument is. So in this case sources like MacWorld, PC World, Informationweek, are all examples of reliable sources. If you can site some articles from sources like that that backup what you say and that describe problems currently not documented on the Mackeeper article I think that would be a very valuable addition to the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi, we don't remove an article because a product is bad. See thalidomide, asbestos, etc. We sometimes delete software articles where the software does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements, however. From a quick glance, it seems like that software is in fact notable. I'd have a look over the policy that I linked to. Feel free to write back here if you think there is a notability problem with the software. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Any advice for why, after logging in and beginning to edit an article, I get a prompt saying I'm not logged in?to

Thanks for any help.71.15.248.221 (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, and that might be beyond the scope of this help desk. You might want to ask at WP:VPM or WP:HD, where more technically minded users often hang out. Or you can wait and see if someone answers your question here -- your call! Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Internet user. The most likely thing is just that the login failed. Perhaps you didn't remember your password correctly or there was a glitch between the Wikipedia server and your computer. It clearly failed though because if you were logged in then your signature above would be your user ID not your IP address. Here are the simple things that you can do to solve a lot of Internet related problems: 1) Empty the cache on your browser 2) Restart your browser 3) Restart your router 4) Restart your computer. I suggest trying those things and then try to login again. Look carefully at the message you receive and if the login fails and if you get an error message write down the message so you can post it here. Also, if you continue to have problems leave the name of your user ID that will help debug the problem. One more thing to remember: when you login there should see a box that says something like "remember me on this computer" If you are not on a shared computer then check that box. If you don't check that box your login won't last very long and you will need to re-login every time you come back. Please note though if you are on a computer that other people also use you shouild not check the box. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Help With Programming

If Anyone In The Teahouse knows java can you please help me im getting some errors in my code. Shadowvault (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Testing my new signature //ShadowVault {<a href=""https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shadowvault>Talk</a>} (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Shadowvault: I don't think we use Java anywhere. If you say which page you are trying to edit then somebody may be able to help. The signature is misformatted. What are you trying to make it do? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Shadowvault: welcome to the teahouse. For more on customizing your signature I suggest you look here: Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing_your_signature Also, fyi if you want to look for info about editing Wikipedia first preface a word with "wp:" before you search. Just like Java Wikipedia also uses packages. The default package is for articles but there are other packages. Things related to editing Wikipedia are in the Wikipedia package and can be indexed with the abreviation "wp:" or "wikipedia:" BTW, I know Java if you have a simple question feel free to leave in on my talk page. I haven't done much programming in a while though so if it's complex better to try Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing The teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia which doesn't require one to know or use Java. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Shadowvault, and welcome to Wikipedia!   From the looks of your code, I think you were trying to do this: //ShadowVault (talk). If so, this is the correct code:
[[User:Shadowvault|//ShadowVault]] ([[User_talk:Shadowvault|talk]])
Now, go to your signature settings, paste the code I gave you into the box, check the "Treat the above as wiki markup" checkbox, and click "Save". After that, you can come back over here and test it out. --Biblioworm 21:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Checklist while uploading an image ?

Hi TeaHouse Team,

I'm trying to upload few images to wiki, which has come in media/paintings/caricatures done by artists/protest clippings etc. Could you please help me find a checklist for the same. And if possible, how could I build a team for doing the same.

Almithra (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Im not a teahouse host, but would reccomend getting a few experienced Wikipedia members to help you with this, and by this i mean you can create a post in your user sandbox where they can help you with stuff and callaborate using the talkback feature. Shadowvault (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Almithra. I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but unless they are very old, it is likely that the media, paintings, caricatures and clippings are all copyright, and may not be used in Wikipedia unless the copyright holder for each explicitly releases it under a free licence. See Help:Upload for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Article submission: Music artist/producer: Ranto Bokgo

Hi Wiki peeps, I have just submitted an article covering a biography of one of Zimbabwe's most enterprising acts Ranto Bokgo. which my hopes were it would be placed online as an official wikipedia article. I've just received mail from Mr. Varitas that the article requires 'cite' support? How would i add these to the article including a jpg or two??? Rantobokgo (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rantobokgo. The biggest problem with your draft article is the lack of references to reliable sources. Every factual claim needs to be referenced. Please read Referencing for beginners and follow that advice. Please also remove the duplicate content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Hello, Rantobokgo. The comments both at the top of Draft:Ranto Bokgo and on your talk page User talk:Rantobokgo explain what the problem is, and contain links (the blue words) to pages that explain what they mean. The point is that in a Wikipedia article, every single statement needs to be referenced to a reliable source, such as a major newspaper, or a book from a reputable publisher. The problem is that even if everything you write in the article is correct, Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody may edit; so tomorrow or next week or next year somebody may edit it - perhaps to improve or correct it, but perhaps they will be mistaken, or mischevous. If there is a reference, then a reader can check the information, but if there is no reference all the information is unreliable. Please see referencing for beginners for more information.
I'm afraid there are other problems as well. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means that articles are required to be written in a neutral tone, and from a neutral point of view. Phrases like "inspired guitar style and poignant voice" simply do not belong in an encyclopaedia (unless they are quoting a reliable published source unconnected with the subject, such as a review in a major newspaper). If you are Ranto Bokgo, then it is likely to be very hard for you to write the article in a suitably neutral tone: that is why we strongly discourage autobiography on Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

How to indicate that a Userspace article is "Draft"

I am confused about the use of the "userspace". I was thinking that I could work on some articles in there and later on submit them. But then I came across something about using the category "Userspace draft" Can someone please clarify for me on the appropriate approach to indicating something is a draft in my userspace? I noticed my current userspace article is accessible by google and did not really intend it to be indexed on google until the article was hopefully accepted later on after I feel I am ready to submit it for review and further edits needed are done.

also can someone please tell me how to thank the users who help me on Teahouse?PhilPsych (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi PhilPsych. Add the following text to the top of your userspace draft: {{userspace draft}} This will mark the page with a templated message that will let users know that the page is a work in progress. It also automatically adds the NOINDEX magic word to prevent search engines from indexing the page. Best, Mz7 (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Howdy, Phil. The _NOINDEX_ won 't remove the indexing that has already been done. You can make the existing links in search engines go to a blank page by moving your draft to a subpage of your sandbox and then blanking the redirect that is automatically created.
There are lots of ways to say thank you. I like to use the template {{Thank you}} that produces a   Thank you. Just stick it on their talk page or at the end of a conversation followed by your signature of four tildes. If you click on the link to the template, there are lots more templates that might convince others that you know what you're doing around Wikipedia. Take care and   You're welcome!, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 21:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  Thank youPhilPsych (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
On a related note, one of my drafts showed up in a Google search. I've never moved it to article space because it seems to fall short in several areas, despite my attempts to find information over the years, even though I'm sure the man would qualify as notable.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Searching for Sources

I am trying to find sources for an article using Google. I have used WestlawNext in the past, and it lets you search for documents with a search term appearing some minimum number of times (atleast). So if I searched atleast50("wikipedia"), it would only return documents in which the word wikipedia appears at last 50 times. Does anyone know if there's an equivalent for Google? thanks. Becky Sayles (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Becky Sayles, welcome to the Teahouse. In my opinion search engines are the best way to find sources. I use Google as my primary search engine (let's say source engine). But when I use search engines to find reference I always alter the terms instead of using the words used in Wikipedia articles. I do this to prevent search engine from returning Wikipedia articles as search results. But sadly I do not know other tools which can be used to find references, if there is some kind of tool for that then I'm pretty sure that it'd be search engine as well. Like I said before search engines are the best way find references on the Internet--Chamith (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Becky Sayles. Here are two links with info about Google power searching: http://www.google.com/advanced_search and https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2466433?p=adv_operators&hl=en&rd=1 --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Becky. I pine for some of the same search functions that Lexis provides when I use Google but there is no equivalent I know of for many of them (especially useful would be equivalents for w/3 and pre/3). There are a number of tricks you can use though. See this Google guide to search operators and other guides from the list on the left hand side of that page. But I don't think there is any equivalent of the atleast function. Hmm, I'm wondering if you could cheat, by using the + operator. Let me check.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Becky Sayles: Okay, yes, it does appear you can use the + operator to achieve this result, albeit it's a bit painful. Just type your search term then a + before it as many time as you would have used for atleast. It actually only takes a few moments if you use copy and paste (type the words twice, copy that, paste a few times, copy them all, paste a few times), For example: coat alone returns about 40,000,000 results but coat +coat +coat +coat +coat +coat +coat +coat +coat +coat +coat +coat +coat +coat +coat +coat +coat +coat +coat +coat returns only just over 20,000 results.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Becky Sayles! Google does not provide that function. Modern web search engines have moved from a search based on (key)words to a search based on more abstract entities, like concepts. As a result, they do not have functions related to the mere quantity of words in a document and, generally, web search engines do not use the repetition of a word as a signal of relevancy. If you really need to focus on the quantity of words, though, the only Google trick that I can think of would be to use a search query like "cat * cat * cat * cat", which would return documents that contain at least four instances of the word "cat". I hope that it helps. Cheers! ► LowLevel (talk)

Are there volunteers on Wikipedia who like to make animations to improve articles?

I'm looking for a custom animation (best) or an image (also good) to improve a particular spaceflight/science-related article. Is there anyplace on Wikipedia where people with such interests hang for discussion, or for considering such requests? (My analogy is the Guild of Copy Editors where a bunch of good writers and English-language folks gather to help copyedit articles by request. They are great; and I'd like to see if such might exist for skilled and interested image folk.) Cheers, N2e (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey @N2e: The Graphics Lab is the place for these types of things. Not sure about the availability of animators and whatnot, but that'd be the place to ask :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks @SuperHamster:, that's exactly what I was looking for. Ain't Wikipedia great? Turn over a rock and you'll find a bunch of super people making this amazing emergent phenomenon even more wonderful! N2e (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
And so now I have done just that. Here is the request I put over at the Graphics Lab. Enjoy. N2e (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, N2e, maybe this software might help you or the artist who will accept your request. Cheers! ► LowLevel (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, LowLevel. Looks useful. I've added that info to the article Talk page, and also to the request over at the Graphics Lab. N2e (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Create page on Ibycus rachelae?

Dear ladies and gentlemen here on Wikipedia: I would like to create a Wikipedia article on the Ibycus rachelae, also know as the 'long-tailed slug'. I thoroughly searched for a similar page on Wikipedia, but could not find one. Please give advice,and/or comments as I am not very experienced with editing or making pages. Thank you for your time.

D011235813d (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@D011235813d: Hi D011235813d! That's a great topic, as all animal species warrant articles. What I suggest is first starting with taking a slow and thorough tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. It will give you a grounding in many things that will help you become more familiar with basics (for example, not starting lines with leading spaces, which I've fixed above:-). Once you do that, I suggest you take a look at some similarly situated articles that you might emulate to some extent in writing this one. Since this appears to be the only species in the Maoriconcha genus, you'll have to look at other types of similar gastropods. Maybe some of the articles in Category:Onchidiidae, Category:Panpulmonata, Category:Limacidae or Category:Stylommatophora might help? Meanwhile, you might try posting for some collaboration and/or help with this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Writing a new article about company

Hello, I am a new user to Wikipedia. Although I have added minor information in two/three articles but this time I want to create new article. The article is about Sony's subsidiary in Japan. The article about that company exists in Japanese version Wikipedia but I want to create the article in English. The problem is that company may not be well known outside Japan to people but I consider it important since it one of the core production houses of company should I write article on this?111.68.102.115 (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. First of all I suggest you create a new account. You may either register now or ask for your article to be created at Articles for Creation. It is much easier to manage everything if you create an account. I assume that the company meets Wikipedia's notability standards. As you are writing an article about a company please make sure to write it in a neutral point of view style. And also find sources to verify content you are going to add. Check out Wikipedia:Starting an article to get an idea about how to write your first article.--Chamith (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Internet user. Please consider setting up a Wikipedia account, which offers many benefits to editors. The fact that the "company may not be well known outside Japan" is irrelevant, assuming that the company is truly notable in Japan, as I am reasonably sure that it is. This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. Please read WP:TRANSLATION for information about how to translate Wikipedia articles from one language to another. You can use Japanese language sources as references, but if you can find any English language sources, they would be best, for accessibility reasons here. Good luck to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
P.S.: I saw that your talk page is full of warnings about vandalism and disruptive edits. Probably because your IP address is shared with large number of people. If you didn't do those edits I strongly recommend you create an account before contributing to Wikipedia.--Chamith (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Who can I talk to directly to answer my questions about my difficulties with my articles

In particular David Clarke (author) Bierton Strict and Particular Baptists The Bierton Crisis Converted on LSD

ammoung others

Is this a none article post ??

David Clarke 22:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello 519Clarke,

Looking at your Talk page and contributions it appears that you are having difficulty creating articles successfully. Typically when you receive a message on your talk page, like the ones about the articles you've mentioned, it is appropriate to respond on the same page. You can use a template to notify the other user that you have responded, like this: {{ping|Username}}, substituting "Username" with the Username you'd like to receive the notification. You may also message other users on their talk pages by clicking on the (talk) next to their username, and then creating a new section on the talk page.
Some of these links may be helpful: Wikipedia:Starting an article Wikipedia:Notability (books) Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Wikipedia:Notability (people)
Becky Sayles (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello @519Clarke: (David), if you're asking us "where can I just talk to someone about what's wrong with my draft?", then here is probably the best answer. I've seen a few of your drafts come through AFC, and from what I'm seeing the simplest sum-up is that you simply are not acknowledging the policy WP:Notability and are just trying to push through articles about yourself, your book, a dispute in a church group you're involved with, etc. Anything you want published on Wikipedia absolutely must meet the requirements of WP:Notability. If it does not, it cannot, full stop, be accepted. I strongly urge you to read WP:Notability in detail, as that's pretty much the exact reason why you've repeatedly had articles turned down, deleted, etc. Does this help explain it? If you do read Notability, and still aren't sure what the issue is, please come post here again, and let us know specifically what about Notability you don't understand, or how you think your drafts do indeed meet it. It'd help also to provide us some links to Declined drafts so we can see where you've run into tangles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I am a slow reader and it takes time for me to take things in. I will look at the document you mentioned. Half the time I simply do not understand what is being written in the references . The language is technical and precise which makes learning difficult.

Some body mentioned they had seen a reference in the States about Bierton Strict Baptists, some thing I was unaware of. When I asked for that reference it was suggested I was being lazy that I should find the reference my self to make an article stick. I have loads of references but I am not sure if they are acceptable to Wikipedia and a simple one to one vocal could clear up many cloudy issues and thus avoid me making so many mistakes. David Clarke 15:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 519Clarke (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_272&oldid=1142564844"