Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 422

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

Archive 415

←

Archive 420

What shall I do after delete discussion and the draft is to "keep"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Hongchi_Xiao&redirect=no Shall I wait for the picture issue to be resolved or submit now? Is there anything else that I can do to improve the draft? jdxzhu 17:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdxzhu (talk • contribs)

Hello, Jdxzhu, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have looked over the draft and made some edits to it, in particular removing some unnecessary detail and some promotional-tone wording. I also corrected some of your reference formatting; you should be able to follow the examples I did to correct the rest of the references. (In particular watch out for switching the work = and title = fields, and note that references should follow directly after a word, punctuation or another reference without any spaces in between: example,<ref>{{citation}}</ref><ref>{{citation}}</ref> next word, not example, <ref>{{citation}}</ref> <ref>{{citation}}</ref> next word. On the other hand I may have gotten some of the Chinese authors' first and last names confused, so please check those. Also note that the language = field is required when the trans-title = field is used, and whichever specific Chinese language — e.g. Mandarin Chinese or Cantonese — is used in a source should be listed in the language = field; I wasn't sure which one was correct, so I just listed them as Chinese.) It looks to me like you've done well at including criticism of Xiao to balance the article. I think the draft will be ready to be re-submitted after just a little more cleanup. Feel free to return to the Teahouse if you require any further assistance. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 20:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jdxzhu: As the close of the deletion stated: "The result of the discussion was Keep. Note (mostly to user:Jdxzhu) that this means keep the draft. It bears no indication to whether it should be moved to article space, or not; nor to the draft not being eventually deleted later on"

What that means is that the current version is not so irredeemably promotional that it should be immediately deleted. It now proceeds under the normal process - you keep attempting to 1) demonstrate that there are third party sources that discuss the subject in depth and 2) that you can write the content in a non advertisorial manner that is neutral, detached and presents both positive and negative points of the subject. If you continue to submit without without making significant progress in addressing the concerns, you can expect fewer and fewer reviewers to waste their time even checking on it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your help. I will find time to work on the draft later. Your detailed instructions are greatly appreciated! jdxzhu 21:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdxzhu (talk • contribs)

@Jdxzhu: Are you by training or trade in the marketing business? Professional marketers in general have a terrible time writing for Wikipedia because our WP:NPOV policy is in contravention of everything they have learned to do for their job. One thing that you might consider is stepping away from that draft for a while and visiting some of the articles in Category:All articles with a promotional tone and seeing if you can spot and fix the problems. It may give you a new perspective for the draft you are writing and help convince people that you are here to improve the encyclopedia and not just pimp Hongchi_Xiao . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom for your suggestion and trust. I have no background knowledge in training or trade in the marketing business. If you don't mind giving me a link or two of the paragraph with promotional tone, I'd be happy to help editing. I do think that the draft is in pretty good shape now. It only needs a few cleaning ups like GrammarFascist has pointed out. I appreciate your idea and help. jdxzhu 02:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Jdxzhu (talk • contribs)

ISBN confusion

The article on John Robert Greene includes a list of his works, including the book "The Presidency of George Bush" (2000) with ISBN=978-0-7006-0993-2. This agrees with the Google Books entry here. But (you knew there would be a "but" didn't you) when I use the resulting link to search on that ISBN at Google Books it gives a different book here, namely "On Feminist Ethics and Politics" by Claudia Card. Yet the cover page is of the Bush book. Is there something strange going on, or am I just too stupid to live in the 21st century... Gronk Oz (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Gronk Oz. This ISBN search produces the Greene biography of Bush. Maybe it has something to do with the dashes or hyphens in the ISBN number in the article. I always use a string of 13 digits without punctuation. Then again, something else may be going on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Cullen - I should have mentioned that I removed the dashes. I was trying to clean up the referencing in that article. I see now that when I follow that Google Books link all the way down to its conclusion, it gives a different ISBN (978-0-70060-968-0) for the Card book. So perhaps the fault lies in Google Books; I will see if there is some way to report it to them. Thanks for the help.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Tagging problem

I came across Eye Institute, low vision and blind rehabilitation "Josefina C. Bignone", an article in need of attention. As I started to fix some of the issues it had been tagged for, I noticed that most of the article seems to be a translation of this page that is used as a ref. I'm not fluent in Spanish so I can't see if it is an exact translation, but it seems pretty close to me. Should this be tagged as a copyvio even if the words aren't in the same language? Not quite sure how to do this. Any advice would be appreciated. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 21:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted, W.carter! That's a tricky one. I ran the source page through Google translate and got something that was similar but acceptably different from our page. However, I see that the page is translated from es.wp, and that the page there has been deleted as a copyvio. Translated copyvio is still copyvio. My opinion: this isn't close enough to justify nomination for speedy deletion as G12; it's complicated, so your best bet is to blank it and list it at WP:CP (add {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)}} at the head of the page, save, then follow the two easy steps on the resulting template). Ping me if you need help with that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and advice. Looking at it now, I see that the eminent Lfstevens (much obliged) has completely re-written the article in zero time and thereby eliminating the need for any tagging. I'll save your answer for the next time I run into something like this. Best, w.carter-Talk 23:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we have notability here, so I have opened an AfD discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry, at the moment I was only looking at the copyvio problem, hadn't got to the notability yet. w.carter-Talk 10:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Multilingual page linking

I was editing my page, and I wanted to add a link to a Dutch Wiki page, but as I typed it in, it said that the page did not yet exist. I know I could just add the link via Google search, but I think it's more convenient if I could find it in the page-links. Could anyone help me solve this issue.

Thank you in advance. Arkhampsyco 03:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuakooij1992 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Arkhampsyco. You should find the technique you want explained at Help:Interwiki linking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Joshuakooij1992: Hello! Please note that your signature must have a link to your user page or user talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Joshuakooij1992: The easiest way to get a valid signature and still display Arkhampsyco is to enter Arkhampsyco in the Signature field at Special:Preferences but not have a checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup." PrimeHunter (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Unusual Notability factors - how to evaluate.

When I saw the article Free Spins Bonus, I thought it looked like advertising and its only references were promotional. So I checked Google News, and finding only PR releases and similar, I tagged the article for CSD. The author, Scoli77, replied that the term is well known and widely used in the gaming industry with 22,200 Google searches per month and growing (1000% from 2007 till now). There seem to be numerous sites that list the "Free Spins Bonuses" that are available at different casinos, without discussing them in details, and some casino publicity talks around it without mentioning the term specifically. It might be enough to give credence to the claim, but I am not sure how to evaluate it. If anybody can contribute to the discussion, please do so at Talk:Free Spins Bonus#Contested deletion.Gronk Oz (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and if sources do not specifically discuss the term/phrase and provide a social context, we do not include it. WP:DICDEF / WP:NEO etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, TRPoD, but I'm not sure that the dictionary is the best analogy here. Wikipedia has articles about butterflies, but we are not acting as a dictionary to define the word "butterfly" - this is a similar situation. The article is about the thing itself, rather than the words we use to name it. Nevertheless, I take your point about the need for sources that specifically discuss the subject and provide a social context. In the end, an Admin will decide, but I would like to use this opportunity to develop a better understanding of the issues.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Gronk Oz:, While we generally provide a definition for all of our entries, when all we can provide is a definition, that is when WP:DICDEF comes in. And in this instance we dont even have any sources stating "Free Spins Bonus is a xxxxx"; there are barely even any reliable sources using the term let alone defining or placing it in context. If we had something from say Ad Age talking about how "Free Spins Bonus" became a standard marketing tool for online casinos" and a study of how effective they are in promotion, then we might be able to have a short encyclopedia article about the topic - although it would still probably be better as a redirect to Online casinos and then include the content under a marketing subsection. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Outcome: Admin Jayron32 declined the CSD, because the subject falls outside the categories of A7. May still get AfD. TRPoD - I see you took the pruning shears to it; thanks for that.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright license issue

Hello. Currently, there is an unresolved problem with the licensing of Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic flags, and logos. A fellow editor, MrPenguin20, had his Somalia Battalion flag nominated for deletion over the "self|cc-by-sa-4.0" license. I tried preventing it from getting deleted by placing the "PD-textlogo" in its place, only to still have it deleted regardless. This was probably the 4th deletion out of 6 nominated flags and logos of all editors in the past year and a half. The problem here is that we need appropriate Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic licenses for the sake of identifying flags and logos of various factions. "PD-UA-exempt" doesn't apply since they are not a part of Ukraine. Also, I couldn't find any copyright laws on the DPR's website regarding this [1]. I would really appreciate anybody who can help us solve this year long issue. SkoraPobeda (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

(moved to top of page by GrammarFascist in hopes of eliciting more helpful responses)

Hello, SkoraPobeda, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry no one has answered your question yet; probably it's because none of the Teahouse volunteers who have seen the question knew any applicable answers. I know I don't know anything about how copyright applies to national and sub-national flags. I would think there's probably a fair-use exception to be made for low-resolution copies, but that's just my educated guess. Good luck getting a more definitive answer... —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 01:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Try asking the question at WP:MCQ, which is the Wikipedia desk for people with copyright questions.Jayron 32 02:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There is an essay, WP:Copyright on emblems, which may be useful. If the breakaway People's Republics in question have published official blazons, which are formulas for creating a flag or coat of arms, then a graphic artist could create a free version of each flag by following the formula. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Also worth checking out is WP:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. An active member of that project may be able to help. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. I will check out the WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology first. SkoraPobeda (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Format of dates

Could someone with more know how in this matter please explain what are the acceptable date styles. If European is expressed as "DAY MONTH YEAR" without punctuation is US expressed without DAY "MONTH YEAR" Explanation: "on 1 January 2016" -- that is acceptable and as far as I know the only correct way to express it. And of course if there is no day it would seem simple enough to accept "MONTH YEAR" without punctuation. Now, US: "On January 1, 2016,/." is the only acceptable way but in those instances where no DAY is indicated such as "On January ,/." is it necessary to have a comma between the "MONTH YEAR" since a comma following the YEAR looks a bit cumbersome.

Is it necessary to include a comma when a date stands alone in the following style: "January 2016" such as in the "UPDATE" field of the coding? Thank you.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Srednuas Lenoroc. There is a handy table of acceptable date formats at MOS:DATEFORMAT. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that in either US or UK English a comma is needed in Month Year. Nthep (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

How to make a page?

Hello, i'm new in wikioedia and i want to make an article, can someone tell me how to make one? Thank you in advance.HolyRidek (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi HolyRidek, and welcome to Wikipedia. Here is a guide to creating your first article: Wikipedia:Your first article. Good luck! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello HolyRidek and welcome to the Teahouse! Creating articles is just one of the ways editors improve Wikipedia. The vast majority of improvements here are edits made to existing articles. At the top of each article you'll see buttons to "edit". There's a lot of work that a keen editor can do; have a look at Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia for some direction and advice.

Personally, I would spend a while (a few weeks) doing this sort of gradual improvement work before attempting to create an article. Creating a new article is quite difficult, and a lot of editors who try that first thing end up getting frustrated and have a bad time of it. However if this is what you definitely want to do, the best advice I can give is the same as onel5969: read Wikipedia:Your first article.

By the way, a fun way to learn the basics of Wikipedia in about an hour is to play The Wikipedia Adventure.

Happy editing! --LukeSurl^{t c} 21:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

English translation of an already-existing French wiki page

Hi, I'm writing my first article here, a bio of a French writer. I hope I can explain properly, as there are two ways I can do this:

1. translate the already-existing French wiki page into English. (I know French, I don't need a translator.) (There is no English page yet.)

2. write a new bio in English (original content) but use the links, references, etc. from the existing French wiki page.

I would like to know the best way to go about this as, the page I want to add is an English page of an already-existing French wiki page. So is it better for me to translate it myself or write a new article? And also, which editor or formatting template do I need for this, since there is already a French page. I just want to get it right the first time, before I make it 'live'. Thank you very much for your help!! alphaville3467 Alphaville3467 (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Alphaville3467: welcome to the Teahouse!

The page: Wikipedia:Translation has some information for this process, particularly ensuring proper attribution if you go the "directly translate the French version" route.

"What is the best way" really depends upon the specifics. English Wikipedia in general has a fairly high standard for sourcing . I have seen some French articles that are really well sourced, and some that are terrible. What types of sources in English are available? Assuming you are fairly familiar with the artist, as you look at the existing French, does it seem to appropriately represent the topic and provide good "bones" to work with, or would you be better off with something else (maybe the French is chronological but you think organizing by Fiction / Non Fiction / Poetry would provide a more coherent picture)? Also consider your writing style - is closely following a model going to provide you with familiarity and give you a confidence of "Yes, I know where I am going!" or is it going to feel like a straight-jacket? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your fast response, TRPoD. I did read that wiki translation section, but it's a bit confusing to me because of the experience another editor had with translating this page. It was barely begun, when another editor deleted it, and it looks like every attempt made to even get an English page started was deleted before it could be completed. This is why I want to be very careful with how I approach it, because I would like to be able to work on it and fix it as I go along and not have the same experience. The process seems unnecessarily confusing, over and beyond the difficulties in translating a page from one language to another. Before it goes live, can I have the time I need to work on it and get it right and of course get feedback from others? I understand that there are many reasons an article might get flagged for deletion but my question is, why does this happen while you are actually in the process of editing it? Before you even send it out there?

My first choice here would be to just translate the existing French page, which is well-sourced and written well. I was only considering writing an original bio because it seemed like that way would pose fewer problems. But it takes longer, and I would be very happy to just translate the French one.

I am also a new editor and I did read all the sections and FAQS. But...I'm here in the tea room first because these are issues that aren't addressed in there, and I don't want to spend hours working on something, only to have the same experience. I just want to be able to get this page up.

It's all a work in progress, everything that we add to wiki. I'd be very happy if my first experience is a good one, because I would like very much to add more in the future. --alphaville3467Alphaville3467 (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alphaville3467. If you work on your English language draft either in your individual sandbox page or in draft space (as opposed to the main encyclopedia space), it is highly unlikely that there would be any attempt to delete it. Only if it was libel or an overt copyright violation would anyone try to delete it, or if you abandoned it for six months or more. If the French writer is notable, and if the article is properly referenced before submission, it will be accepted. I recommend that you use the Articles for Creation process, which includes a review by an experienced editor before the article goes "live". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

(e/c x2) Hey Alphaville3467! I think option 2 should be done here. It's perfectly fine to do a direct translation, so long as you comply with copyright attribution to the source French article. However, assuming this is about fr:Gabriel Delmas, that source article is full of highly-promotional evaluative material, stated in Wikipedia's voice, much of which translated perfectly would have no place here. So, where normally I would say absolutely, translate it and then describe some detail on the process of translation to you, here I think – if at all – you should begin mostly from scratch because the bulk of the prose is not acceptable.

I say "if at all" because it's not clear to me based on the sources cited there that the subject is notable: some there are blogs—user generated that would not meet our reliable sources standard; a few contain no content on this artist and the link to the archive is dead (at least for me); some are primary sources that are not independent of the subject. I am not saying he is not notable, but it would be a shame to spend your time on a topic that is likely to not be acceptable at all, so gather and evaluate your sources first. Are there sufficient reliable, secondary, independent sources (in any language) focusing on this subject in detail to sustain an article? If so, I suggest:

Starting this in the draft space through the articles for creation (AfC) process. Alternatives, if you're not going to use AfC, are to still create it in the draft namespace, e.g., at Draft:Gabriel Delmas or at a subpage in your user space, e.g., at User:Alphaville3467/Gabriel Delmas and work on it there until you think it's ready to "go live" by a move to the mainspace. You can also submit it for review through AfC at that time by placing at the top {{subst:submit}};
Regardless of where you start it, if you ultimately copy French content over to be later translated at your leisure, or you translate it directly, you will need to comply with copyright. Do this by providing attribution in an edit summary, such as: Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Gabriel Delmas]]; see its history for attribution. This should be supplemented by placing the filled-out {{Translated page}} template on the talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Alphaville3467 and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest you start with the article in a space that is called your "sandbox". Yours is located here: User:Alphaville3467/sandbox. Just click on the red link and start writing something. This is your own space where you can develop the article in peace and quiet. If you want some help, you can also invite other editors here to come and take a look and suggest things. I'm one of those who can help you that way. I translate a lot of articles myself and I have also helped other editors who have started with a translation and then expanded and re-written the article more in their own style. I'm also one of the editors who help newcomers find their way around the WP. Here are some more things you should know before you start with the article:

WPs in different languages have very different rules and standards. Articles and facts that are good to publish on one WP are not automatically OK for other WPs.

If you translate texts from one WP you must also "bring along" the references for that text. If the text in the original language is unreferenced, you must find references yourself to support the text you have translated. Some WPs allow references in a foreign language, other prefer not to have them. They are totally ok to use here at the English WP. A translators role on the WP is very different from translators in other places. When you translate a piece of text to a WP, you become responsible for that text in the same way as if you have written it yourself, you can't blame the first editor who wrote it if anything is wrong in it.

You must put a template on the articles talk page about the translation. These templates should contain information about what article version the text is collected from and which version on the other WP that it is inserted to. See Template:Translated page, and here it is used on one talk page translated to the English WP. It is the small box with two flags. This is so that the editors that originally wrote the text get credited. There are similar templates/boxes on the WPs in other languages.

You are very welcome to ask for help at my talk page during your work. À bientôt, w.carter-Talk 19:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As you can see from the answers above, there are several ways to do this. Feel free to choose the one that is most suitable for you. w.carter-Talk 19:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Alphaville3467. After reading the article about Gabriel Delmas on the French Wikipedia with the assistance of Google Translate, I have to agree with Fuhghettaboutit. That is a very poor article by English Wikipedia standards. The two biggest problems are the overall promotional tone that infuses the article, in violation of the neutral point of view, and the poor quality references. I recommend that you start from scratch, and build your article entirely by summarizing, in neutral language, what the highest quality reliable sources say about him. Quality is much more important than quantity when establishing notability and beginning a good biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And on an unrelated note, it appears that there might be a 19th century printer Gabriel Delmas that might merit an article [2] if you are just looking for something to do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Are Legion of Honor members automatically notable? [3]? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Le Stylo Rouge Du Destin: This might give you some clue about the Legion of Honor. w.carter-Talk 00:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your responses, this was very helpful. I'm going to write the article from scratch, as this is the best solution. That will be the easy part, as the artist has a huge body of work that is well-known in France. More difficult will be tracking down articles/sources in English, so I'm glad I can use French sources. But it's good to know I can get feedback and help, as I am going to need it. A lot of it. I don't expect the issue to be one of 'notability' as all of the subject's work has been published and he is widely exhibited, not just in France. But finding reviews and sources that meet the English WP criteria, I do hope this is not the insurmountable issue. But I suppose I'll soon find out. Thanks very much, everyone, and a very special thanks to w. carter for offering to help me. I appreciate it! Alphaville3467 (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm interacting with a new user who may need a kind of welcome that I'm not good at

I'm looking for someone who is good with new editors who seem to think Wikipedia is a place to make friends (WP:NOTFACEBOOK). Trust me when I say I don't think I'm the most qualified person to welcome this new editor or, if it comes to it, to help her realize that Wikipedia doesn't have what she is looking for.

If you are that person, please hop over to this new user's talk page and introduce yourself. Thanks. There is no need to keep me in the loop on this - I have the editor's user page on my watchlist. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I commented there, davidwr, trying to strike a balance between helpfulness and firmness. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Consistent Unwanted "Editing"

I invite you to look at my entry (John Robert Greene). Someone continues to put in a category ("Living Persons") which I do not wish to have in my entry, which I have repeatedly said in the edit comments (after I have undone his or her edit) that I do not want. I am convinced they are just playing around with this edit of my entry. My last comment to them was that I was going to report them for vandalism. Is this all that I can do? Much thanks for your help.Scrivener13 (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but per WP:OWN you don't get to decide what goes in as it isn't "your" entry, even if you are the subject. Action would only be taken if the entry was problematic, a category linking you to some kind of wrong doing, for example. In this case the category suggests you are a living person, which, unless you're contacting us from beyond the grave, seems accurate and unproblematic. It is a maintenance category used on all such entries and its inclusion means that the article falls under our WP:BLP policy, making it less, not more, likely that people can "play around" with it. Valenciano (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you John Robert Greene? If so, and if you are posting here, you appear to be a living person. Read the article ownership policy. You do not get to control "your entry". Before reporting someone for vandalism, in adding a valid category, also read the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

According to this edit summary, Scrivener13 is Greene, which makes it all the more confusing that he is claiming not to be alive. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Before jumping to a conclusion, can I ask what is the reason for this request? Is there some reason why it is not appropriate to classify John Robert Greene as a living person?--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't guess why Scrivener13 wants the "living persons" category removed. But I will explain why the category is being added, and the consequences. All Wikipedia articles which are about living persons should be in this category, so it is being added to John Robert Greene by editors who believe he is still alive. This is important to Wikipedia for legal reasons. If someone adds some defamatory sentences, sourced to a dubious publication, to an article about a dead person, there will be no legal consequences. But if they do that to an article about a living person, there is a danger of Wikipedia being sued; so the standards of sourcing, and relevance, that must be met before adding negative content to an article about a living person are higher. Maproom (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Need help with article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davide_Lazzeretti

Hey there, I need help revamping this article. The previous edition made little sense to me.

Kolmias (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kolmias, and welcome to the Teahouse. Given that Davide Lazzeretti was reportedly an Italian preacher, you could ask for help from participants in WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Italy. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

And here's a source to get you started. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kolmias! I happen to know a good deal about the life and death of Lazzeretti. I think I should have a good printed source for details of his life, possibly with illustrations, but I'm away from home at the moment and can't check. Meanwhile, there are brief biographical details in this long page; ping me if you need help with the Italian. You were right to remove the rest of it, looks like someone has been trying to self-promote here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Gajpanth

Hi, everybody. I need help, I need any Indian cultured or Jain cultured people so that they can help me in this new article Gajpanth. If you are helping please reply on talkpage of Gajpanth Thank you, Regards BOTFIGHTER (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@BOTFIGHTER: Hi, and welcome. Teahouse is a place to ask specific questions about editing Wikipedia. If you need experienced users for collaboration, try contacting WP:WikiProject India or WP:WikiProject Jainism. Wikiprojects are pages specifically designed to bring together editors of similar interest and specific knowledge. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please explain when I see a page I created has been 'partolled'?

Please explain when I see a page I created has been 'partolled'?InfoDataMonger (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@InfoDataMonger: The patrol log (part of Special:Log) shows whether the page was patrolled (reviewed). See this example: [4] (you can change the "target" parameter). The page in the example was patrolled two times because after the first patrol it was deleted, and then created again. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of the time when a new page is created it is listed on Special:NewPages. Editors then go through the new pages and look for pages that need work, should be deleted, or are good to go. After a new article is looked at the editor may tag the article for cleanup, tag the article for deletion or think the article is good to go. In each case they "patrol" the page so it no longer shows up on the list of new articles. On your new article, Harold Armytage Sanders, Eeekster tagged the article with having to long a lead and also patrolled. -- GB fan 14:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit clash) Hi, InfoDataMonger. Don't panic; this is a good thing. New pages get a quick check by an experienced editor to make sure they don't contain anything that would be unacceptable (defamatory material, child pornography, etc). Being marked as "patrolled" just means that no serious problems were found.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look and advise what needs to be edited

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matchpoint_NYC I've created this page and included references which in my opinion are reliable such as NY1 News, businessinsider.com and few other publications. What's needs to be done to avoid deletion? Thank you Stanislavzarubin (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Stanislavzarubin: I left you a comment at Talk:Matchpoint NYC. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Question moved from talk page

Hello, I can't submit my questions to the teahouse because despite signing the ask question link is still dead.The questions I want to ask are is it true there are 25million pages on wiki including all languages?and is an autobiography a reliable source?Thanks84.92.84.254 (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I don't know why you can't post to the Teahouse directly. In answer to your questions:

At the bottom of meta:List of Wikipedias you can see that there are currently 36 907 975 articles in all the language Wikipedias put together (and 141 603 046 pages including talk pages, project pages etc).
An autobiography may be a reliable source, if it is published by a reputable publisher; but it is not an independent source, so it cannot contribute to notability, and it may be cited to support only limited information (uncontroversial factual data): see WP:PRIMARY. --ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks87.127.113.154 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Username Change on Urdu Wikipedia

I want to change my user name on Urdu Wiki from Anjana Larka to اجنبی لڑکا but unable to find a place where I can request my username change. I don't want to change my name globally just only on Urdu wiki can someone help me how and where I can request that change? Anjana Larka^{Talk ✉} 05:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anjana Larka The easiest way would be simply to create a new account as اجنبی لڑکا and use that account on Urdu Wikipedia instead of Anjana Larka. A drawback is that your present 13 edits on Urdu Wikipedia would be attributed to Anjana Larka not اجنبی لڑکا. I doubt it is possible to change your username just on Urdu Wikipedia; it would have involve somehow un-unifying your global account. —teb728 t c 06:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Anjana Larka: Since the WP:SUL was implemented, users use a single username across all Wikimedia projects. You can rename your global account (M:GRP), but you can't change your username just in Urdu Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You also have the opportunity to change your signature on that project so that it displays anything you want it to show when you sign posts, etc. I don't know if this would be "good enough" for what you want to do, or not, but it is a way to show a particular name on just one Wikipedia project. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 14:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I wasn't aware of that rule will consider creating a new account. Anjana Larka^{Talk ✉} 14:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Anjana Larka, you could perhaps consider keeping the same username, but using the Urdu version of it as a signature on ur.wp. To create that signature you'd need to go to this page (I think – I can't really read that language!). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Rafic Nakib

I and other reviewers declined Draft:Rafic Nakib. User:PoppyJr78 posted the following to my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=692875215&oldid=692869693

I would appreciate feedback from other experienced editors. The basic problem that I have is not with the notability of the journalist but with the tone of the article, which appears to be written to praise him. He probably deserves praising, but not in the voice of Wikipedia. Do other editors have any comments or advice or encouragement (such as to say that the article is getting better, which it is)? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

As to the original poster's statement that he will be writing pages about this individual in French and in Arabic, I assume that he means for the French Wikipedia and the Arabic Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi I removed The adjective "devoted" from the death paragrah. and frankly I don't see any praise tone left in the artilce. When I am neutrally admitting that his wealthy successful friend appointed him as GM, you call that a praise! iam just saying things as they happened. The "pen against guns" paragraph is full of facts and that's why he was unique and his courage in the face of dangers must be recognised. Also it's written in a very modest tone while saying what he notably did!PoppyJr78 (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I find the title "pen against guns" itself is a bit promotional, especially when it begins by saying that he "became an active defender of the freedom of speech". Our aim is not to praise his bravery, but to provide information. If the reader then concludes that he was a great man, that is up to them.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, thanks for your care and editing. The title of the paragraph "pen against guns" was a mere describtion of the events as they happened when Gunmen used force against a media organisation( which means automatically an attack on freedom of speech)! However I am open to your suggestions. Give me another title with a mroe neutral tone! even if the title looks very neutral to me because it describes exactly the content of the paragraph which is full of many indpendent reliable sources talking about the attacks. I don't mind removing the line "active defender of the freedom of speech" if we keep the title of the paragraph as it is. What do you think? PoppyJr78 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Hi everybody. I changed both the paragraph title "pen agianst guns" and the line "became defender of freedom of speech". I think now the tone of the article is 100% neutral. I hope you will approve it as soon as possible because i want to focus on wariting the arabic and the french versions and adding a couple of photos to the 3 articles.Thanks in advance. PoppyJr78 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Not letting me cite

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and was editing an article. I was trying to cite, so I clicked the cite button, but it wouldn't let my add anything in it. I tried a different article and it still was not working. The first one I tried a web address and the second a book. Please help! Thank you in advance.

GimbarratoGimbarrato (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Gimbarrato and welcome to the Teahouse.

Did you try to reload the page and maybe you should try editing in source.

I know it's not the best answer but i'm pretty new to Wikipedia myself.HolyRidek (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Gimbarrato, welcome. If you are clicking the "Cite" link in the pale-blue bar at the top of the editing window, you're missing a couple of steps: you still need to click where it says "Templates" all the way at the left of the second pale-blue bar that clicking the "Cite" link opens (or closes); then you need to select either "cite web", "cite news", "cite book" or "cite journal" from the drop-down menu. That should open up the appropriate form with fields for you to fill in.

(If you're using VisualEditor, however, I'm afraid I can't help you, because I disabled it for myself years ago and no longer remember how it even works.)

If you followed the steps I outlined and the form is not appearing, please tell us what browser you're using and what type of device (desktop/laptop computer, tablet, phone, or other) so we can better help you troubleshoot. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 23:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Gimbarrato, there is even a video showing how to do this, on YouTube here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

How to cite a source in VisualEditor

Gimbarrato is using WP:VisualEditor. Adding source should be easy – literally three clicks (as shown in this animated gif). Gimbarrato, could you please tell me what web browser and operating system you're using? Do you have NoScript or other extensions installed? What's the URL/web address you were trying to use? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on WP:NLIST

The guidelines seem to indicate that the same notability standards apply to lists of people as to articles themselves. In other words, if an individual doesn't have their own bio page, they shouldn't be on lists of e.g. "Notable alumni" or "Notable residents". Is it appropriate to simply remove all such list items without a linked article? I'm looking at California Academy of Mathematics and Science in particular. Thanks, Qzd (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've often wondered about this too. I've tended to remove people who don't have articles if they appear to lack notability, but of course there can be notable people who aren't yet the subject of articles. If notability is established through references in the list, does the lack of an article matter? If anything, a red link to a clearly notable subject might encourage someone to create an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

At California Academy of Mathematics and Science#Notable alumni, the issue with most of the entries is a lack of references, so notability is not established and they should probably be removed. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The existing references are not great either. As much as I think professorship should convey notability (it seems like every professional athlete has an article), I don't think that's the case for WP entries. However, I've kept them in the list for now. Qzd (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Being an (assistant) professor isn't enough in and of itself to meet the notability criteria, no. Take a look at WP:PROF for guidance on this, Qzd. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Also see WP:LISTPEOPLE. It is certainly wrong to remove people simply because they don't have an article. The question (at most) is whether they meet the criteria to have an article. The requirements for references are much more substantial. Unfortunately the guidance is rather incoherent and should not be read too literally. Thincat (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The answer is "it depends". Every page gets to make its own 'rules' about which names should be included. The most common approach to alumni at a large/old/famous school is to pick the most famous people, all of whom already have articles, and then to have a separate list of all the notable alumni, which includes hundreds (or even a couple thousand) of people, all of whom probably could qualify for an article (=lots of red links). For smaller/newer/less famous schools, it's common to include whatever you can source. Until the list has more than 10 or 20 people in it, there's not much need to worry about anything beyond WP:BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

How do I continue a conversation that I started last week?

Last week I asked how to take the first steps toward organizing an Edit-a-thon. Cullen328 gave me some helpful suggestions (Thank you!). I'm only a part-time worker at the nonprofit where I'm organizing this Edit-a-thon, so I'm only just now getting back to this question. But it says this is an "old" or "closed" conversation, or words to that effect, and that I'm not allowed to "edit" it. Of course, "edit" is the wrong word for what I want to do. What I want to do is "continue" this conversation, by asking Cullen328 (or anybody, really) a new question. Am I allowed to do that? If so, How do I do it? When I find out how to ask a follow-up question, here are the questions I want to ask:

) I'm drafting the content for our Edit-a-thon page in my Sandbox. I have another experimental article in the Sandbox, with a reference at the end of it. This morning I wrote the draft of my Edit-a-thon page, in my sandbox, after the other experimental article. When I did, the reference from my experimental article jumped all the way to the bottom of the Sandbox, under the content for the Edit-a-thon page. I don't want that. How to I tell Mr. Sandbox that the new batch of content I wrote today is an entirely different article? Or an entirely different page?
) What's the difference between an "article" and a "page"?
) Can I start a new "article" or "page" in my sandbox? If I do, is that called starting a new sandbox?
) Am I allowed to have more than one Sandbox?

Grindall Reynolds (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Grindall Reynolds. I've reformatted your questions above to make them easier to read. As you've found, once a question has been archived, you shouldn't edit it, so what you've done here is the best thing.

The answer to most of your other questions is: you can have as many user subpages (or "sandboxes") as you like. You start them by editing User:Grindall Reynolds/name of this subpage. The one named "sandbox" is special only in that there is a link to it from the top of the browser window. You can't usefully create more than one article in the same page, so I wouldn't recommend trying. "Article" and "page" are often used interchangeably (especially by people who don't understand that this is an encyclopaedia, and think that the can create a "page for" somebody or something ;-)). Used more carefully, a "page" includes many things that aren't articles: talk pages, project pages like this one, user pages etc. --ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine.

Grindall Reynolds (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Just great. Now I have an error message that say "User account "GrindallReynolds" is not registered. If you wish to use "GrindallReynolds" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username."

Except GrindallReynolds is already my user name. Bet you ten bucks that if i click the link that says "Wikipedia:Changing username," it will tell me I can't register that username because it's already taken (by me). This is very frustrating, and I really want to give up. Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, if I do give up, then I will never learn how to create a subpage.

And if I never learn how to create a subpage, then I won't be able to move my Edit-a-thon page out of the sandbox and make it a subpage of "Meetup." Or of GLAM Wiki. I still don't know which one would be the right one for an Edit-a-thon about Henry David Thoreau sponsored by a library. Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

[Aside] As one who worked as a graphic designer (print) for decades, it drives me nuts that when I type more than one paragraph in one of these little comment boxes, the first paragraph is indented . . .

and the second one is flush left. Why does it do that? Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:GrindallReynolds is not registered and it is not the username you are using. Your username is User:Grindall Reynolds with a space between the "Grindall" and the "Reynolds". The software is that picky. Those are two separate username. -- GB fan 20:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, GB Fan

Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to put a colon at the beginning of each new paragraph. That is the way the software works. -- GB fan 20:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Grindall Reynolds: The thing with the indentation

works like

this. You can

see it if you look

in the editing window. :)

I have left you some notes on how things work here on your talk page. Please create a new sandbox and experiment with things like this. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 20:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, GB Fan and/or w.carter, who may or may nor be the same person. Do I type a return and THEN type a colon, or do I just type a colon and the software automatically replaces it with a return? If that's the case, how to I tell the software when I really want a colon to appear, I'm not using the colon as secret code for "start a new paragraph?"Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I figured out how to create a subpage (yay!). I copied the whole text of my Edit-a-thon page and pasted it into my brand-new subpage. I had to recreate all the links and formatting, which got stripped away in the copy-and-paste. It was a lot of work, but it was worth it.:Guess what?:It said I had something called an "edit conflict" and "The upper text area contains the page text as it currently exists (without your changes). Your version of the page (with your changes) is shown in the lower text area.":But there isn't an upper text area or a lower text area. There's jus a big text window with nothing at all in it except this:

REDIRECT User:Grindall Reynolds/subpage

From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

which Is NOT the 75 lines of type I copied and pasted and just did all the formatting and links to all over again. How do I resolve the edit conflict without starting the whole process a third time?Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Whoa!!:That wasn't what was in that text box at all! What I saw in the text box was

REDIRECT User:Grindall Reynolds/subpage

From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

Now I'm totally confused!Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Grindall Reynolds by posting that code for the "big box" here you accidentally proposed the Teahouse for deletion. I have neutralized that now. w.carter-Talk 20:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It happened again. What Isaw in the text box was:

Open fancy bracket, open fancy bracket, db-rediruser, close fancy bracket, close fancy bracket

REDIRECT open plain bracket, open plain bracket, User:Grindall Reynolds/subpage, close plain bracket, close plain bracket

Open fancy bracket, open fancy bracket, R from move, close fancy bracket, close fancy bracketGrindall Reynolds (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The page with the redirect tag is User/GrindallReynolds/subpage. Your content has been moved from there to User:Grindall Reynolds/subpage. You'll see that the first slash should have been a colon, and that (as mentioned earlier) you had omitted the space between "Grindall" and "Reynolds". — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 November 2015‎

I have deleted that page as it is not needed. -- GB fan 21:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, that worked. Thank you for your patience.Grindall Reynolds (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. If you have any more questions please ask. and just for the record we are all different people. -- GB fan 21:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Grindall Reynolds: ... and we tend to butt in on conversations a bit willy nilly. To answer one of your questions that got lost somewhere in the whole commotion: You type a return first and then a colon. It is only when a colon is placed first in a row that it produces an indentation. In normal text it is just a colon. Like this: ":". You used it several times yourself in the text above. that should have given you a clue. :) Inside different kinds of brackets it is part of the code here. You can see more about all of this at the Help:Cheatsheet. That link was also among the links I posted on your talk page. Please take some time and look through that before continuing. w.carter-Talk 21:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)