Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 311

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 305 ← Archive 309 Archive 310 Archive 311 Archive 312 Archive 313 → Archive 315

Notability Help.

Hello the Wikipedia Teahouse!

I have been trying to work on an article for awhile. It was removed as it was apparently not notable. I am not fully aware of Biographies on Wikipedia and how they work. If someone can please visit - User:DmitryPopovRU/Alex Gilbert. Please do not take it down but please give me advice and how I can grow this article and do look at the sources. I am sure these references are notable, it is not also for a so called ONE EVENT problem that was brought up before. All I am asking is simply.. Is this article notable and why not? and what can be improved. I also left this message on a noticeboard too but I found this later so I do apologise. DmitryPopovRU (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @DmitryPopovRU: Wikipedia determines notability by “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” Nothing written by Alex Gilbert would help establish notability because it is not independent. I am sorry to say it doesn’t seem to me that you have addressed the concerns at the deletion discussion. —teb728 t c 07:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, DmitryPopovRU. You need to show that the topic (Gilbert) is notable, not that the sources or references are notable. Notable sources mention non-notable topics in passing all the time. Routine "feel good" human interest stories about an adopted child reconnecting with his birth parents is not enough to establish notability, in my opinion. Otherwise, we have a camera operator involved in a few notable projects. A camera operator, not a movie star, director or screenwriter. It would take a long and distinguished career as a camera operator, discussed in detail in reliable sources, to confer notability. This guy is 22 years old. His career is just beginning. I truly doubt that he is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks heaps for your response! I appreciate it :) DmitryPopovRU (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Double image

I just created an article for St James Episcopal Church (Baltimore, Maryland) and posted it even though the image I took last summer displays twice. I've puttered around with it for over and hour and can't figure out why it happened, nor how to get rid of it. I already tried deleting the caption and even switching out images, but they all double. I'd appreciate any help you can offer.Jweaver28 (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jweaver28. I've fixed it with this edit. My edit summary will tell you what the issue was. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
[1] was a bad response to the common error of writing image syntax in the image parameter when an infobox only expects the file name. {{Infobox church}} should be coded to use Module:InfoboxImage, but I don't have experience with that. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Page delted after 1 day

I have created one page and added some basic information into it but now it says This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. So much confused, i have also contacted my institute and told them that i have created our page in Wikipedia, now it is deleted, so embracing situation for us.

User interface is so confusing and old layout, It is very bad site for new comers and not helpful at all Eirenaios (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, my friend. Sit down and have a cup of tea. Don't be discouraged; we are all here to help you. You are talking about G K Bharad Institute of Engineering, right? Well, first thing is — you should not be writing an article about an institution with which you are closely affiliated. Try to write or edit some articles about other subjects in which you are interested, just to get the hang of editing here. One does not jump off a diving board before one can swim. Just go through the encyclopedia and choose some articles to improve. That would be a good first start. Also, look at the links that some other kind editors put on your talk page here. Did you see them? They should be helpful to you. And come back here to the Teahouse with more questions. Good luck! GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Good afternoon! I'm the admin who hit the delete button and I apologise for hitting the delete button so quickly. I've temporarily restored this article. Basically the article needs to cite a few independent external sources in order to stay on Wikipedia. For an example of how it's done, see the "Notes" section on Oriel College, Oxford which is a featured article. Deryck C. 12:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Citing a statement removed from a newspaper article by its authors

Dear Teahouse: I have a disagreement with another contributor who insists on adding to the article on Barry Freundel a statement that was removed by its authors from a news article that is posted on The Washington Post web site. My position is that once the journalists re-edit their article and the text is changed online information that appeared in a previous version but excised from the current version has to be assumed to have been removed due to an inaccuracy, an unsubstantiated generalization or similar problem and that the editorial freedom of the journalists has to be respected. Is there a Wikipedia policy posted online that I can refer him/her to that substantiates my position? {{subst:signed|Zozoulia}} {{time}} (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed statements are sometimes "retractions" and should never be used for claims. The reason most are removed is that they were inaccurate in the first place, a few are removed due to complaints of defamation. Newspapers are "reliable sources" because they will remove inaccuracies. Collect (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Page author undoing my corrections

Hi, First off, thank you to Technical 13 for the Teahouse invite! I'm perplexed by a page creator choosing to undo my edit corrections on a sports-related page he created without an explanation that I can find. The issue is that the event isn't even correctly described - it's effectively mis-labeled because it's a different format used for the competitors at the start line (mass versus individual starts). I've sent him a message explaining the error, still awaiting a reply. I've considered undoing his "edit" on mine and that seems to be a needless step. Any ideas/thoughts on how to approach this, since I sent proof (links to the FIS site, world governing body of the sport) of what the actual name is and that it's not correct. Trying to keep this generalized without a lengthy description/discussion on the specifics. ;-) Cheers, Marc Jmlangille (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jmlangille! If you are talking about FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2015 – Men's 30 kilometre pursuit, the guidelines we try to use is WP:BRD which is bold (your edit), revert (his reversal) and discuss (what happens next). You're correct that the next step should not be for you to revert his revert as that can lead to edit-warring which can lead to a block from editing. So, I would suggest you either go to the article talk page or the primary editor's talk page and explain the edit you want to incorporate and your reasons for it. Discussing differences of opinion can take a little more time but it's preferable to an edit war! Liz Read! Talk! 18:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Airplane article notability

Hello, I'd like to start an article on an old airplane. Only one was built and it did fly, but the design was a failure. Would such an article be notable enough to be on Wikipedia? Thank you Samf4u (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Samf4u! Notability is acquired, in large part, by coverage in secondary sources about a subject. Was this airplane written about in newspapers or magazines? Those source would help establish its notability. Liz Read! Talk! 17:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Liz Read! Talk! and thanks for quick response! The plane is the Johns Multiplane I found 5 sources and there are photos I can use. It's a very large and unique aircraft. If you think the article would have a chance I'm willing to give it a try. Thank you Samf4u (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
My best advice is to look in Category:Aircraft by type for planes that are similar to the one you want to write about and model your article on a few of those. You can see what articles have been successful and what might be expected from yours. Also, work on your article in user space, on a page like Samf4u's Sandbox or Draft:Johns Multiplane, then you can work on it over time and move it over into the main space of the encyclopedia when you think it's ready. Also, ask some editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation to look over your article and give you their opinion. That's my 2 cents. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking time to help me. Samf4u (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

how to use preview and combine edits

How do you use preview and combine edits? I recently made a large number of edits to this page Drunk driving law by country. Something went wrong during one of these edits and it is difficult to see what.Rubbish computer (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have encountered an edit conflict in which A user and B user are editing at the same time, and A saves first then B saves, however the server cannot combine these together, so you must manually combine the text you and the other user was adding, which is displayed below the edit window, or copy the text you were going to add, cancel your edit, and edit and paste your text and modify as needed, for more information see WP:ECF, hope this helps. - Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa123|UPage|☺★ (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
After checking your talk page and history of the article, it seems it is not a edit conflict, I recommend you ask user:Drmies exactly what he means. - Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa123|UPage|☺★ (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I have posted the standardized message {{Uw-preview}} to you to explain what Drmies means. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's probably what I mean, yes. But the main thing is that a whole bunch of minor edits should have been combined in a larger one, to make the history less inscrutable. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both I will make sure to always summarise edits in the future.Rubbish computer (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding a term.

We in the aquatic community are all familiar with the term "Hookless Fishing" which is used for the undamaged capture of live specimens, either for bait (sorry) or research ( sorry again) or aquarium trade ( probably a third sorry!) This does not detract from the existance of the term but I am not very computer literate and would like some help in getting this term placed in Wikipedia. I do feel confident enough to fill out the description once the term has been set up. Can anybody help?

IFOCAS 86.167.20.252 (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IFOCAS. There are two questions you (or somebody) need to answer: First, is there more than a paragraph or two that can be written about this? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary, so articles are expected to be more than just a definition. Secondly, but more importantly, are there enough published sources on which such an article can be based? Pretty well every single piece of information, and absolutely every opinion, judgment, argument or conclusion, should be based strictly on what somebody has already written, and published in a reliable source (such as a major newspaper, or a book from a reputable publisher - not usually a blog or social networking site). If you can find suitable sources (which don't have to be online, by the way, but must be published), then you are welcome to have a go at writing an article - I suggest you start with your first article, and use the article wizard to create your draft in a place where you are free to work on it and to request a review when you think it is ready. --ColinFine (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Formatting issues and unreliable references

Hello Teahouse experts. I am attempting to write a wikipedia about Melbourne Artist Josh Lord. Josh received Art grants in the 1997 and in 2000 but because it was late nineties where there was little internet it's been difficult to find substantial links to credible references. I've been advised by a Wiki contributor to remove facebook references, that would leave my article a little slim. He also has advised that with some formatting work my article could be accepted. I've had it declined once, I have received feedback several times and have taken all the advice and adjusted my article.

Could you please advise what formatting errors I can fix? If it's just links to facebook I will remove those. Thank you

WriteaboutArt (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Because there was quite a lot of work to be done, I went ahead and ran Auto Wiki Browser through it a few times. The main issue was a lack of Infobox and "<br />" was everywhere. Please don't use <br /> when it is not needed. It should be much better now. Good luck with AfC! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, it is so much better, I appreciate your help. I have made some more edits, taking out all Facebook references and tidying up punctuation. I hope it gets through. The artist is planning a major exhibition in March and I would love for this to be published. I will then add all new work to the page. WriteaboutArt (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, WriteaboutArt. Please don't "add all new work to the page". By all means update the article with new information; but be guided by what people unconnected with the artist have written about. If the critics have discussed some works at length, then write something based upon what they have said. But if nobody has written about a work then there is nothing that the Wikipedia article can say about it - not even its existence, unless it appears in a published list of works - and the article should probably not mention it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech in Wikipedia

What are the limits to freedom of speech in Wikipedia? Wondering.Frogger48 (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, and welcome to the teahouse. The complete detailed answer to your question can be found here at WP:FREE SPEECH. Basically while Wikipedia strives to be open and free, they can and will moderate things written here. Remember writing on Wikipedia is not a right, but a privilege. More importantly hate speech or libelous writings will result in a permanent block. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to nitpick, hate speech and libel aren't protected by the first amendment, see false statements of fact. However, there are plenty of forms of speech that are protected by the first amendment, but are forbidden here, such as promotional writing and original research (though neither will likely result in a block for a single offense). --Jakob (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

When editing list of episodes, something went wrong as episodes are not in a table anymore.

On Waterloo Road (series 1) I edited the page and includes the Episode list. Have I done something wrong as if you see Episode 3-8 are not included in the table, they are like blanked out I'm very confused and would appreciate the help if anyone has the answer. Thanks, :)SerieLover (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  Done The problem was that you were trying to format the Notes as a bulleted list, which is not supported inside that template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gronk Oz (talk • contribs) 01:18, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

how to caption a photo not in an infobox

I added a photo on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrienne_Haan that is not in an info box. I'd like the caption to be next to or below the image, but it is showing up on the left lined up with text while the photo is on the right edge below. Is there a way to keep the caption next to the image? There is another photo on that page in an info box which is fine. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you! AnnRos (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi AnnRos, welcome to the Teahouse. I fixed it in [2]. There is different image syntax inside and outside infoboxes (and sometimes between different infoboxes). See more at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for how to place images outside infoboxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Why was my revision of the existing Brad Myers' column rejected?

Hi,

I wanted to thank Sam Sailor for letting me know about this forum!

The problem stated was that my large addition to the Brad Myers article was rejected because there was already an existing stub, but I used the existing one as a base and added more information, which was from personal correspondence with Brad Myers.

Although the draft is under my account, I wanted to finish major edits completely before trying to replace the original article, which I've finally done. I've sent it to Brad Myers for approval, and intend to make any other edits he requests.

Thanks, Sara Athomeeditor (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Athomeeditor and welcome to the tea-house.
Unfortunately, you seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is about.
We cannot accept anything based upon "personal correspondence with Brad Myers", because this is not verifiable and is not based on independent. reliable sources.
Furthermore, as you are in correspondence with Brad Myers, and are sending it "to Brad Myers for approval, and intend to make any other edits he requests" you have a clear Conflict of interest and should not be editing the page at all.
We do not need, or even want, the "approval" of the subject of a page - Wikipedia articles are based upon what has been published in reliable, independent sources, whether that be praise, or criticism; we are not here to promote the image that the article subject wants to project. - Arjayay (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Athomeeditor. Using personal correspondence with the subject of a biography to expand an article is not permitted because of our prohibition on original research. Every assertion in the article must be based on what is published in reliable sources.
It is not appropriate to replace an existing article with an entirely new article. Instead, you should make incremental changes to the existing article, in collaboration with other editors. Biography subjects do not have the right to approve articles, although they are encouraged to point out errors on the talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Arjayay and Cullen, The article is cited throughout. It is about awards he earned (with citations), birth date, papers he wrote (with citations), names of projects he worked on. I could add more links to the project websites. Everything could be in a dictionary.

Did you read the article? Exactly what sentences or facts are biased? Did you see all the citations? What else is needed? Athomeeditor (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay,

I have a more technical question. I am new, so I know there's lots to learn: What is a better way to go about, as you said, "make incremental changes to the existing article" which I *thought* I was doing?

I started with the exact code of the previous article (a stub) and pasted it into my Sandbox, adding more sections and sometimes moved sentences around, but did Not delete the sentences, facts, and image that were already there.

Here is what I want to know more about -- what I should do instead? 1. I didn't post this as an article yet, just asked (while in my sandbox) for someone to review it. 2. What should I do next time? Athomeeditor (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Athomeedditor, let me repeat myself. When you want to expand an existing article, you edit that article, adding new correctly referenced material in small chunks, so other editors can easily monitor the changes. You do not copy and paste the existing article into a sandbox, and then copypaste it back to the article. Here's why: That copying and pasting destroys all the attribution of the work done by previous editors, and that attribution is required by the Creative Commons license. You can draft chunks of brand new content in a sandbox, but you cannot copy and paste existing content back and forth. It simply isn't allowed, for legal reasons.
Your sandbox draft has other major problems. An example is this passage: "His teaching has been exemplary, as shown by how successful his PhD students are. A number are in academic jobs at top institutions like MIT and the University of Washington, and their students are faculty, and so on, down about 5 generations so far!"
That's overtly promotional language and all such puffery is inappropriate in an encyclopedia article. Especially the exclamation mark. The article must be written from the neutral point of view, and every trace of promotional language must go.
Your draft reads more like a curriculum vitae or a LinkedIn page than an encyclopedia article. Go for prose not lists. The section on cute acronyms is completely inappropriate. The lengthy list of publications and minor awards should be trimmed drastically to major publications and major awards. You actually mention honorable mentions for papers he wrote, and link to his resume. Your draft is riddled with external links. Get rid of all of them, except a couple in a separate section at the end. Instead, every single assertion should be accompanied by a properly formatted reference to a reliable source. See Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

How to prevent Speedy Deletion tag from being deleted

I placed a "Speedy Deletion" tag on an article, but the author just deleted it. I warned him and put it back; he deleted it again. He even blanked the whole discussion from his Talk page, and refuses to engage. His only responses are the edit summaries he gave, which were: "stupid", "go away, idiot" and "please stop being a waste of time". I would rather go through the proper Dispute process so we can discuss the issues, rather than play a stupid game of tag-and-delete. Is there any way to prevent him from just deleting the tags, or otherwise have a more constructive approach? The article is Innsbrucker Hütte. Gronk Oz (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Gronk Oz in general the user gets warned using {{Uw-speedy1}} up to {{Uw-speedy4}} then reported at Administrator intervention against vandalism if they do it again after the final warning. This is what normally happens with new editors that are just frustrated trying to create their first article. What I was surprised by was that William M. Connolley is not a new user in fact a Members of the Ten Year Society. Even if they disagree, the tag clearly states "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" and comments such as "please stop being a waste of time" are not the way to deal with disagreements. I would have expected such a seasoned editor to have politely pointed out on your talk page it was work in progress and could you remove it and give them time, but then I would also have expected them to have developed it in a sandbox or used a work in progress tag. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's my take on the matter, Gronk Oz. You tagged the article for speedy deletion as promotional, and as not indicating the importance of the topic. The topic is an historic mountain hut in the Alps. Such wilderness accommodations are an important part of the history of mountaineering in the Alps, where the sport began. I see no promotional language whatsoever in the article. The initial edit summary indicated that the article was being translated from the German Wikipedia, and that article links to discussion of the hut in the archives of the Alpine (mountaineering) clubs of Germany and Austria. A Google Books search shows that this hut is discussed in many books in both German and English. Disclosure: I have written an article about a similar facility in California, Horse Camp. The bottom line is that I believe that tagging this article for speedy deletion was not appropriate. I agree that William M. Connolley could have been more polite, and should have added some references. On the other hand, you could have been more careful and refrained from adding the speedy tags. Let it be a learning experience for all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your perspective, Cullen328 - insightful as always. I am going to step away from this for a while to let things cool down, but might I be so bold as to suggest that any contribution you care to make on this question would be welcome at Talk:Innsbrucker Hütte#Why is this Notable?

Referencing Priority

My question is suppose two editors A and B have two slightly different info from two different sources X and Y respectively about a same article then how they can publish info on the wp without edit warring scenario? OSMAX20 (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, OSMAX20. That's an easy question to answer in theory, but a bit tougher to put into practice. In theory, you and the other editor would discuss the issues on the article talk page and along with other interested editors form a consensus on how much of each reference to include to assure the end product meets the policies on neutral point of view and verifiability. In practice, it isn't always that simple and because of that we have several different levels of dispute reresolution. John from Idegon (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, OSMAX20. If the information is just "slightly different", then it should be easy to accommodate both interpretations, by writing something like "Jones, a professor at Harvard, described X, while Smith, a professor at Oxford, advances slightly different theory Y". Editors A and B should respect each other's work, read each other's sources, and discuss things on the article's talk page. A Wikipedia article should summarize what the range of reliable sources say, giving due weight to each side of a dispute. If X and Y both receive equal respect from experts, then they should be covered equally. If one is the dominant view, and the other a credible minority view, then the article should make that clear.
The way to avoid edit warring is very simple - do not repeatedly revert, ever, even if you are convinced you are right. Reverting indisputable vandalism is an exception, along with removing personal attacks and copyright violations. Instead, discuss things on the article's talk page to build consensus. If that fails, utilize dispute resolution procedures. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, an additional piece of advice: if you want to avoid edit warring, you can subject yourself to a 1 revert per 24 hour limit (1RR), except reverts of blatant vandalism. This (voluntarily imposed) limitation will prevent you from reverting reverts, which is the precursor to an edit war.
In a dispute, you can follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Basically, in a dispute be bold, revert, then discuss on the article's talk page. If you absolutely want to avoid edit warring, discuss on the article's talk page first in a dispute, try to come up with a solution, go with the solution then go on from there. Esquivalience t 03:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia allow users who have controversial beliefs to Edit Wikipedia to contribute in a positive way?

Is Wikipedia unfairly censoring users and userboxes that are from members of hate groups and those that support the believes and ideas of these controversial political organizations and pedophiles and pseudoscience promoters? Frogger48 (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have some reason to suppose so? If so, what? Thnidu (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
No, but we are fairly and properly blocking their accounts, reverting their edits and deleting their userboxes. Have you stopped beating your wife?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit: Good! Hate and child-rape and unscience promotion do not belong here. (I'm not talking about discussion of them: obviously, for example, the Holocaust must be covered.)
If by the link you are implying that Frogger48's question is a loaded one: I figured it might well be, but also might be in good faith. If someone is, say, a skilled gardener and also belongs to a neo-Nazi organization, the latter in itself should not hinder them from editing about gardening and plants. --Thnidu (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I did not mean users that use Wikipedia to spread their own viewpoints, harass other editors, and vandalize wiki pages. I meant users who hold these beliefs, and still edit Wiki in harmony with other editors and in a neutral way, (in that their beliefs do not affect their editing). And not all pedophiles are child-rapists (People do not choose to be attracted to children or adults any more than they choose to be attracted to males or females. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa). Child molesters are defined by their acts; pedophiles are defined by their desires... "Dr. Ray Blanchard, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto; Former Head of Clinical Sexology Services in the Law and Mental Health Program of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; Served on the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-IV and on the DSM-5's Work Group on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders.). Wikipedia should not be used to mock those who have pseudoscientific beliefs or attack there ideas (or those of hate groups or religious fundamentalists) These people have the right to feel welcome here, if, of course, theyr intions are to help, as opposed to, hurt, Wikipedia. Frogger48 (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Frogger48: BOGGLE Well, yeah. I should have distinguished child molesters from pedophiles. I'm obviously missing something: What question did you mean to imply was a leading question? (I'm also getting the sense we may be arguing in circles over something we have no significant disagreement on at all.) To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Thnidu: My question was, "Does Wikipedia allow users who have beliefs that align with the ideas in religious fundamentalist or hate groups or sexual positions and subcultures that are controversial (skinheads, necrophiles, zoophiles, pedophiles, etc.) or people who come from other stigmatized social groups who won't use wiki to harm or convert others, vandalize pages to support their beliefs, or to engage in criminal activity as well as it doesn't prevent the specific users to talk about their ideas on their talk pages in a friendly non-hurtful way.?" "I also want to know if Wikipedia is biased or censors the articles about groups that promote these beliefs, like the page for NAMBLA for example." P.S. My question was confusing and I apologize for offending anyone, but I choose to do this in order to support freedom of speech on Wikipedia
--[unsigned comment added by Frogger48, 07:58, 21 February 2015. (diff) --Thnidu (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)]
Well, this may be the wrong place for such a heated discussion. We might drive away some of the newcomers. Simply my opinion. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but I think that this question is very important to have an answer to. Frogger48 (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I found an article where the writer copied almost all of, if not all of, the relevant text from another website. Richard Haines is the article, the website is the first source in it, and it clearly states the website owns the text copyright. I removed most of the text, wrote a stub lead, and left the references and notified the writer. What else? Thanks. MicroPaLeo (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

MicroPaLeo, it looks like you were in the right removing that. If you want to keep working on the article, you could always rewrite the material you removed in your own words and add it back.  DiscantX 01:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I am not interested in the article, not my area. I probably just categorized it. But he is considered one of the major New Deal muralists and should have an article that is not a copyright problem. MicroPaLeo (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability for an entire class of subjects

I have come across some situations where WP projects / working groups appear to have reached an agreement to treat all subjects in a certain class as being de facto Notable. For example, in America any building that is included on the National Register of Historic Places seems to be accepted automatically - in fact I have been told as much by an editor (that conversation is now lost in the mists of time). So my question for the wise Teahousers: is this a legitimate approach? I can see how it saves a lot of time justifying every case individually, but its informal, undocumented approach does seem open to abuse... Gronk Oz (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Gronk Oz I think it depends on each case but generally being on any such official register of items of special interest would seam reasonable. Basically if the subject has to have some form of notability to get on such a list, then it can be taken that by being on such list is thus notable. I think is someone tried to just claim a similar thing for a group that was not based on an intrinsic underlying importance they would not get away with it. People often try to claim notability by being in the same class/group as other similar notable subjects but it doesn't in general work. Their has to be a reason behind why all subjects in a class/group/list are notable, such as the National Register of Historic Places and for the UK Listed building. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, @KylieTastic: - that sounds like a good guideline. Another similar situation is where every suburb of Sydney automatically gets its own article. I suppose that fits a similar paradigm; if it is significant enough to be gazetted as a stand-alone suburb then that is a prima facie argument for it being notable. Great; I can work with that concept. I still wish these decisions were documented somewhere for reference, but the world does not run according to the way I want things to be! Thanks for your helpful perspective.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Gronk Oz. Are you familiar with an essay that is found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes? That lists many categories of topics where notability is presumed. However, the notability of each topic needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis if challenged. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Cullen328 - that is perfect.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Gronk Oz. For geo subjects such as the above mentioned suburbs of Sydney, the only requirement for notability is the existence of some official reference to its existence at any point in time. So yes all suburbs if anyplace are notable. It isn't something uniquely negotiated for Sydney. Per the gazetteer pillar of Wikipedia, we will try to have an article for every place that ever existed. I only write on US places, but here all that is needed is being in an official map, the existence of any census record, a post office or listing in the GNIS. John from Idegon (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I recently cited the same reference several times on Drunk driving law by country. The reference contained the necessary information for both points. Should a link only be cited once?Rubbish computer (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish computer hello and welcome to The Teahouse. For each reference you use more than once, choose an appropriate name. For this example we'll call it "name1", "name2", etc., but you should use something descriptive. For one use of each reference you want to use several times, replace "<ref>" with <ref name="name1">. For all other uses of that reference, use <ref name="Name1"/> to replace the entire reference. You must have "/" at the end for the other uses. For another reference, use <ref name="name2"> and <ref name="name2"/>, and so on.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Rubbish computer. Vchimpanzee is exactly right: give it a name the first time you use it, and thereafter just refer to that name. You can see this described in more detail, with examples, at Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Same_reference_used_more_than_once.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.Rubbish computer (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, Rubbish computer. Just to clarify a small point of Gronk Oz's wording: "give it a name the first time you use it" doesn't mean that the name has to be assigned on the earliest use in the article. It can be on any of them, as I've discovered. It's just that it makes most sense to name the reference as soon as you use it, and from then on just use the name. --Thnidu (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.Rubbish computer (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Errol Sawyer

I need the help from good reliable editor for wiki concerning the following article of Errol Sawyer: Mbinebri, wants to delete it for the fourth time. His endeavors to delete this article of a good photographer starts to look the more and more like like a personal crusade? Why does he disrespect this good African-American artist? You give Wikipedia a bad name! Read: [1]

7. Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority. Administrators on Wikipedia have the power to delete or disallow comments or articles they disagree with and support the viewpoints they approve. For example, beginning in 2003, U.K. scientist William Connolley became a Web site administrator and subsequently wrote or rewrote more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles supporting the concept of climate change and global warming. More importantly, he used his authority to ban more than 2,000 contributors with opposing viewpoints from making further contributions.

5. There is little diversity among editors. According to a 2009 survey by the Wikimedia Foundation, 87 percent of Wikipedia editors are male, with an average age of 26.8 years. According to executive director Sue Gardner, they hail mostly from Europe and North America, and many of them are in graduate school.

4. The number of active Wikipedia editors has flatlined. The number of active Wikipedia editors (those who make at least five edits a month) has stopped growing. It remains to be seen whether the current number of active editors can maintain and continue updating Wikipedia.

3. It has become harder for casual participants to contribute. According to the Palo Alto Research Center, the contributions of casual and new contributors are being reversed at a much greater rate than several years ago. The result is that a steady group of high-level editors has more control over Wikipedia than ever.

A group of editors known as “deletionists” are said to “edit first and ask questions later,” making it harder for new contributors to participate, and making it harder for Wikipedia—which, again, aspires to provide “the sum of all human knowledge”—to overcome the issue that it is controlled by a stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic.

To fill you in: Sawyer is an accomplished artist: Read not only his his last interview on the WSW by Richard Philips, but also read what the ex museum director Julian Spalding writes about him on his own website and read what A. D. Coleman (first photo critic of the New York Times) writes about his work in his book "City" Mosaic and on his own website. Also Sawyer's work is present in several important museum collections around the world which gives already the status of importance that he needs to have an article in Wikipedia. I suggest that you help to improve this article instead of suggest deletion. It is very important that Errol Sawyer, considered as having equal value as the African-American photographer Roy Decarava, has an article in WIki UK as he is a role model for the African-American community.

I will ask the advise of more editors as I suspect prejudice. 1027E (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Details can be found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Errol Sawyer (4th nomination) Theroadislong (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit count problem

My edit count has suddenly been reduced to 0. This has happened before and it was corrected but now it has been on 0 for about two days.Rubbish computer (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Rubbish computer. I just checked your count and it shows 1,737. So it was probably just a temporary glitch; they happen sometimes. BTW, you have been busy; that's a lot of edits since you started on just November 5!--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Rubbish computer, even i had this problem some days ago, and there is nothing to worry! X!'s tools sometimes shows 0 and all you need to do is wait, and reload the page!

~"aGastya" ✉ let’s talk about it :) 17:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both.Rubbish computer (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

4 tides

Is is something like that self's signature will now link the talk page in self's talk page? and if so, are we supposed not to sign the posts of self's talk page? ~"aGastya" ✉ let’s talk about it :) 16:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It is best to sign your posts on all discussion pages. When you sign on your own talk page nothing bad happens, it's just that the link to your talk page "turns off". --LukeSurl t c 16:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@User:LukeSurl thanks! i had signed just minutes ago on my talk page and i saw my talk page link wasn't working and it became bold! was shocked!

Well thank you! ~"aGastya" ✉ let’s talk about it :) 16:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Acagastya. Any link to the page it is on is displayed as bold, and not as a link. So here [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions]] appears as Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. (Once this question is archived, the link will no longer be to its containing page, and it will presumably appear as a normal link) -ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Does "Edit Summary" Bar Apply to a Draft?

Hi there! I've been working on a draft for a Wikipedia article that has been rejected previously, and was wondering if it is customary/appropriate/necessary that I fill out the "Edit Summary" bar when I edit the draft. I understand it's smart to do this for published articles, but was not sure about drafts. Thanks so much! LitaOstar (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @LitaOstar: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suppose it's a matter of preference, but I'd say yes, edit summaries should be used for any page on Wikipedia. If and when your draft is accepted and published into the mainspace, its history will also be preserved and moved. Even in draft form, it's not a bad idea to have a history in case you or a reviewer need to go back to check things. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi LitaOstar and welcome to the Teahouse. You should always leave an Edit summery, regardless of what page you edit on. When an article is moved from the Draft to the Main space, all the edits move with it and become edits in the article instead. And you should also leave summeries when you post on user talk pages or article talk pages to make it easier for the editors who have that page on their Watchlist to see what has happened. And when I sign off here I will leave a "reply to LitaOstar" in this edit summery so that you can find it easily in this page's "View history" if you want. There are many more good reasons to do this, these are just a few. Best, - w.carter-Talk 20:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, @SuperHamster and @[[User::W.carter|:W.carter]]! Very helpful advice. I'll be sure to log edits from here on out! :) LitaOstar (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

How do I sit the CAPTCHA test?

Good afternoon Teahouse (right time for the UK). I have just prepared my first article and while there is still some formatting work to do, I wish to submit it for review/publishing. I am a registered user but have not set up a page yet. I asked for my submission to be saved and got the message: Error no/wrong CAPTCHA. I have no memory of having been asked to pass a test and can find no leads on any of the Help pages. Any help would be much appreciated, Brian R M.Marshfrog1& (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

which page did you create?

~"aGastya" ✉ let’s talk about it :) 17:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marshfrog. When you make your first edits the website will ask you to fill out a CAPTCHA, which is a small image with some obscured text. You just write the text in the box underneath and hit save again. There's no test that you need to pass :) Sam Walton (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Sam Walton has suggested that I will be asked to go through the CAPTCHA test when I submit my first edit. I think I should explain my problem in a bit more detail.

1. I have registered as a user - no problem. I have not set up a page. 2. I have written an article in my own sandbox with some fairly crude formatting. 3. On submitting my draft I got the "Error - No CAPTCHA" message. I was not offered an image to respond to. So I really need the answers to several questions: 1. What name should I give my Page when I set it up? A title for my article? 2. How do I get directed to the CAPTCHA routine? Saying "Save" to my draft does not seem to do that. I am a long-standing reader of WIKI but this is my first shot at contributing to it. Sorry to be a drag. Regards, Brian R M.Marshfrog1& (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Marshfrog1&. I'm sorry you are having problems. I suspect you have hit a bug, but I strongly suspect that it is occasioned by your having odd characters in your username (specifically the &). The Captcha should appear when you attempt to add certain dubious external links to a page (and also when you create an account - see Special:CAPTCHA help); but I rather suspect that the & in your username are confusing the software somewhere into thinking there should have been a captcha, but not presenting one. If so, the problem is not actually yours (there is nothing in WP:username policy forbidding using '&' in a username), but I think you'll probably avoid a load of problems if you simply abandon that username and create a new one without that in it. (Of course I am only guessing, so I may be wrong; but I think it's worth trying.) --ColinFine (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I just tested this (User:SamWaltonTest&) and had no issues. Marshfrog, could you double check that you don't see a CAPTCHA image and text box between the edit summary box and save page button after you first try to save your edit? Sam Walton (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Samwalton9: it may still be the user name but in a more complicated way. When I open the editor (as I am now) your link appears as [[User:SamWaltonTest&]], but Marshfrog's appears as [[User:Marshfrog1&#38;|Marshfrog1&#38;]]. I have replaced the & by &amp;#38; in the previous, so that it is displayed here looking as the signature above does in the edit window. It's possible that this is a red herring coming from the signature code, but I wonder. --ColinFine (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As you say, you haven't yet saved anything in your sandbox - your only 2 saved edits are both to this page. As Colin Fine suggests, Captcha is used to stop certain dubious external links.
Firstly copy and paste your work to date into Notebook, Word or a smiliar text programme so it is not completely lost
Secondly remove all your external links and try saving again - initially just use a title like User:Marshfrog1&/sandbox that can be changed later
If the save works, it proves it was an External link problem, and you can then try adding your ELs back one at a time until you find the unacceptable one.
If it doesn't work, then try a new account, avoiding the usual unacceptable filename characters, and paste your text from Notebook/word. - Arjayay (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Barn stars?

Can i award a barn star to an editor who has helped me many a times? ~"aGastya" ✉ let’s talk about it :) 16:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Certainly you can, Acagastya. Choose an appropriate one from WP:Barnstars, and put the relevant code on their user talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


ColinFine okay found the right barn star but how to award? ~"aGastya" ✉ let’s talk about it :) 17:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a column labelled "What to type" in the table on the barnstar page, aGastya. You edit the person's User talk page, add a new section to it, and type exactly what it says in that column except that your replace "message" by the message you want to give them with the barnstar, and "alt" by the text you want them to get instead of the barnstar graphic if they don't use graphics (for example, if they are vision-impaired). --ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Or you can simply click on the little red heart at the top of the editor's talk page and a box will open to guide you through selecting an award and what to write. That is the easy way of doing it. There you will also find other things to give to users such as kittens and food or drink. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 20:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, W.carter: I didn't know that. --ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Fill in "Edit summary"

1. I have to confess that I often forget to fill in the edit summary or to at least mark the minor edit - so: Is there a possibility to add a summary after the page is saved?

2. I noticed that the pros insert a "r" or a "c" in these summaries when contributing on a talk page. Personally, I have often difficulties to distinguish if I comment or if I reply. (I just assume this to be the interpretation.) Furthermore, I am in doubt about the use of colons (:) or >> and when to indent or when not, or, finally and most unimportant, when to unindent - so: Please, help me on track.

Thank you. Purgy (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Purgy:
  1. Unfortunately, no. Once an edit has been made it has been committed to history and there is no way to change the summary.
  2. You can use whichever you want. I would say a "reply" is when you are answering someone directly, and a comment would be a general comment on the topic of discussion that isn't directed at anyone in particular. But that's just my interpretation. Use colons to indent. See Help:Using talk pages#Indentation for info on how to properly 'thread' (indent) a conversation.  DiscantX 09:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I had a more detailed explanation but it disappeared, so I'll give you a quick summary, check H:DUMMY and Wikipedia:Indentation, there is also an option in your preferences, found on the top-right corner of your screen, under the editing tab that prompts you to type in an edit summary if it is blank. Ask me if you want the more detailed explanation, no problem. - Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa123|UPage|☺★ (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
However, Purgy, one of the uses of a dummy edit is to add an edit summary after the fact. --ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Purgy. There is an option that might be helpful to you, and I think it is what Andrei was alluding to - if you go to Preferences (top right corner), the select the "Editing" tab, then half-way down the screen you will see "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary", If you tick this box, it won't let you leave the Edit screen until you provide a summary. It took me by surprise the first few times after I switched it on, but I find it helps.
Oh, about Outdent - as Andrei's links describe, each successive response gets indented one level further (manually, by using one more colon). Eventually somebody gets sick of it being indented too far, so they just put the template {{outdent}} on a line by itself and start again from the left margin. I am not aware of any formal rules for it; use your judgement.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all. I checked the warning in the preferences, I'll dig into the H:DUMMY and mostly will follow Gronk Oz: use my judgement. :) Purgy (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple sources with same text

During my research on a topic I found multiple newspaper/magazine articles with the exact same text. When I use this information in a wikipedia article, should I cite all the articles or just one credible source? Quoting all of them would show that the information is credible since its in various papers. But since all the sources have the exact same text, headline etc...won't it be redundant and irksome for the reader if I mention them all? Quite confused. Ish malhotra (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well in general one reliable source is enough to validate a single point. You can add other references to other points that are mentioned in those references.Abhinav0908 (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. In general I would only cite one. I would, however, be suspicious if multiple articles use exactly the same text. It would give me a suspicion that they were all quoting one press release, rather than writing independently about the topic, and of course a press release from an organisation connected with the subject would not be a reliable source. It may perhaps be a news agency rather than a press release, but either way I would regard multiple repetitions of the same text as much less credible that multiple sources writing independently in their own words about the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Almost invariably they are from a wire service - only one should be used, and the wire service credited. Sometimes, though, lazy newspapers use press releases - if it is identifiable as press release wording, run like hell. The words "fact check" and "press release" are basically antithetical. (IMO -- but a lot of editors love them for some reason) Collect (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
What is your example? It sounds like a news agency but in my experience different media usually add their own headline. {{Cite news}} has an agency parameter. See the second example at Template:Cite news#Examples for use together with a newspaper. Don't make multiple citations to sources which are clearly copies. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense. Must be a press release. Will do as you guys recommended. Thanks a lot PrimeHunter, Collect, Abhinav0908 and David Biddulph! -- Ish malhotra (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Renaming a page 2. Ensuring Google finds the right Wikipedia entry.

Many thanks to the teahouse - Sam Walton and Colin Fine- for already helping with a couple of apprentice-level questions. I seem to have named a page with my own identity rather than a subject. Is it possible to rename it? And what steps should I take to ensure that Google lists the Wikipedia record?

Thanks in anticipation, Brian R MBrianRM1286 (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It is good that your draft is still in your sandbox, because it isn't in an acceptable state to be a Wikipedia article. The first thing you need to do is to establish the notability of the subject in Wikipedia's terms, which means that she has received significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources independent of the subject. You should use thesse sources to provide references for the text which you are using in the article. Please read WP:Referencing for beginners to see how to do this. You should also read the Manual of Style, because the way that it is currently formatted makes it very difficult to read. I have put some further useful links on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, BrianRM1286. To add to the good advice from David Biddulph: when you think the article is ready for review (which, as he says, it is nowhere near yet), edit it to put {{subst:submit}} at the top, and it will get added to the queue of articles awaiting review. If it is reviewed and accepted, the reviewer will move it to a suitable title in the encyclopaedia.
As for Google: you don't, for two reasons. The first is that Google control their own indexing and searches, and there is not a lot you can do to influence that. The second is that it is completely and utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia, not a popularity contest. If somebody wants to look up something in Wikipedia, they should search in Wikipedia. It is true that for many subjects, the first entry in a Google search is a Wikipedia article, but from Wikipedia's point of view that is a happy accident. --ColinFine (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Post editing

Dear all, please can anyone edit this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Information_Science_and_Technology_%22St._Paul_The_Apostle%22 I made some major changes but I need someone to see if there are mistakes of content that is not according the wikipedia rules. thank you in forward. Jovanuist (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jovanuist and welcome to the Teahouse. Part of the edit you made has been removed since it was unreferenced (you must leave a reference saying where you found the facts you add) and some of it was promotional. Texts like "UIST is committed to providing excellence in education ..." are not unbiased and neutral and do not belong in an encyclopedia. I have left a notice containing several links to pages where you can read about what to do and not on the Wikipedia on your talk page, please read them. Best, w.carter-Talk 20:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_311&oldid=1138689293"