Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 434

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 430

←

Archive 432

→

Redoing earlier article

Hi! This is my first time editing a Wikipedia page. I am essentially rewriting the Parelli Natural Horsemanship page, as the initial entries did not appear to be written by someone with much, if any, experience with PNH. (In contrast, I've got several thousand hours of study and experience with the program.) I've got a few questions about editing. :)

1 - The general, the beginners' material that I'm entering is not in dispute (e.g., the names of The 7 Games, the four savvys [sic]). How much poking around on the web do I have to do to provide citations for these basics?
2 - I could (and, on occasion, do) go "on and on" about PNH. What level of detail is appropriate?
3 - In that vein, some of the more advanced material is available only through in-person clinics and I would be drawing on my notes from what was said. How does one cite that? And, somewhat more complicated, how would one cite knowledge that was from "either the Carol Coppinger clinic or the David Ellis clinic, but I don't remember which"? (They are two Parelli Professionals.)
4 - I noticed that some criticisms of the program were included but that the wild devotion (no, not cultlike :) ) of those who practice it (and who have watched their horses transform into wonderful partners) was not mentioned. I want to write a balanced article, so I'm willing to include the criticism -- but can I also include some of the plaudits?

Many thanks for any insight! JackieLL007 (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse JackieLL007. A general rule is that you must base your writing on coverage in published reliable sources that are independent of PNH and NOT on your personal study and experience with the program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teb728 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)‎

Thanks, but I am confused. How does one write about an educational program (when the only reason for its relevance to anyone being what it teaches) without writing about what it teaches? Thanks!

JackieLL007 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi JackieLL007. It's not that you can't write about the programme content, but that what you write needs to be verifiable by published sources, so you can't rely on your personal experience. On this, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a warning from a horse person: be very, very careful about going into detail on the 7 games, because we're not a how-to manual. I've been reverted for using too much detail in the past, and we constantly have to deal with people who want to promote their favorite thing. I'm not saying you'll do that, but it can be hard to maintain neutrality. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to create a page for an individual Playboy Playmate? cont...

~~The women that model for Playboy are most than just Playmates. Some have businesses and other talents, are authors and have accomplished things worth of note. I would like to know if is possible to create a post for those some of them. They have achieve notoriety in more than one way. Can I verify which ones can have their own page in Wikipedia? I believe I can write something worth reading.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Ice Buckett (talk • contribs) 02:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back, Mr. Ice Buckett. Much of what you suggest has already been done - check out Playboy_Playmate#Notable_Playmates.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mr. Ice Buckett. We have hundreds of biographies of Playboy Playmates, but not all of them are notable enough for freestanding biographies. Most of those who went on to varied careers have their own biographies. Those who simply appeared in one issue of the magazine and were then low profile after that mostly do not have separate biographies, but are described in list articles. Please see List of Playboy Playmates which is the highest level list. Then, it is broken down by decades, and then list articles for each year. The bottom line is that a model is not necessarily condidered notable just by appearing as a Playmate. It depends on the range of coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I am gonna quit wikipedia!!!

I am going to Quit WIKIPEDIA becoz it wont allow me to do a single article it just deltes every good articles i make, so !! Bye Bye WIkipedia!! h ah aha!!!!!04:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC) DOnt ever visit me! HighnessAtharva (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

HighnessAtharva; please don't be discouraged so easily. A lot of users have their first few articles deleted; my own first article was deleted, quite properly so. Instead, I would suggest you try and find articles that definitely meet the notability guidelines, such as here, here, or here. You could also always work on improving existing articles on the topics that you are interested in, such as the TV series you mentioned. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

HighnessAtharva - I have read your Spooks Nightmare contribution and hope you will regard my comments in that article's Talk area as constructive. I mention grammatical and other problems, of which there are quite a few in the article. I see from your profile that you are Indian and 14yo so I assume English might not be your first language - and anyway, you are still young! I very much respect your attempts to edit and create in this medium and I certainly hope you will not give up just because you have a few 'teething problems', as Wikipedia aims to encourage contributions from all ages and ethnic groups. Nevertheless, reasonable encyclopedia standards have to be upheld. Might I respectfully suggest you re-read your contributions carefully, always using the 'Show preview' button, then self-edit before posting? You might also enlist the help of someone in your locale, perhaps your English teacher, to check your contributions before you upload (at least for a while). Please don't be a quitter; stay and help improve Wikipedia. All best wishes. Humboles (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

History of Wikipedia

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse i want to know what came before Wikipedia? Was it a wiki site called Nupedia?Instantgamer (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Instantgamer: Hey there, thanks for your question. Nupedia was indeed a predecessor to Wikipedia. That said, we've got an article all about the history of this project (insofar as indpendent sources report it). Also, Time Magazine published a brief history of the project back in 2009 as well (so it is a bit dated). I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Another question about the History of Wikipedia

Hello again Wikipedia Teahouse was Nupedia really the wiki site that came first and then Wikipedia and also can you explain to me how Wikipedia became this global wiki site that it is today?Instantgamer (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Instantgamer: Please refer to my response below, I think the article should cover this one as well. If you have factual questions about Wikipedia or its history, I'd suggest asking more over at the reference desk, as the Teahouse is intended to answer questions about editing. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Copying from related wikipedia articles

Is it frowned upon to copy text from other wikipedia articles or is that OK? For example, I like the first few sentences on Timeline_of_women's_suffrage better than what's currently on Women's_suffrage and there's consensus that the lead of the Women's suffrage article needs work. Since those articles are so closely related, it's tempting to copy some of the text from the timeline article verbatim, but I won't do it if it's a no-no. :) Permstrump (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Permstrump. Yes, it is OK to copy text but you must give attribution. This is a requirement of our Creative Commons license. Use the edit summary with a remark saying that the content was copied over from Timeline_of_women's_suffrage, using the double square brackets as you did above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info! Permstrump (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Michael Cole Wrestling Wikipedia Article

Hello again Wikipedia Teahouse i want to know when the Michael Cole Wrestling Wikipedia article was created?Instantgamer (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

When you are asking a question about a Wikipedia page, please provide a wikilink. In this case [[Michael Cole (wrestling)]] renders as Michael Cole (wrestling). On that page, click on the "View History" tab, then click on "oldest". --David Biddulph (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

David Biddulph, on this question, please see Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 11#Sockpuppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I should have remembered, as I reported one of the previous incarnations. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)--David Biddulph (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. Also notifying I JethroBT. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Sigh, what a waste. And here I was, thinking this person genuinely wanted help. Thanks for providing the relevant context. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 10:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Dispute on multiple pages

Hello again, Teahouse. I am currently involved in a dispute with another editor on several pages, should I discuss the issue on all of the talk pages? Neve-selbert 13:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be best to keep the discussion as centralized as possible. Continue the discussion on one talk page, and leave a final message on the other talk pages to direct the discussion to the one page, something like "I have responded at Talk:Example and suggest we continue this discussion there". --LukeSurl^{t c} 14:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey teahouse?

I have been trying to create my own book, now the bar that you press to add pages have disappeared. and if I go to the print/export it's just saying create a book. does this mean I've lost all the articles I created??? :( and where's the bar to add pages gone??? please help me.:o . Xray~Vision158 15:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Xray~Vision158. Click "Show book" and save the book before ending a browser session. Otherwise you risk losing the book (it can depend on browser settings). If you do non-trivial work then I also suggest to save periodically. If you are on another computer or browser now then there is a chance the book is still there if you start the same browser on the same computer as you used before. If Special:Book does not show the book then I'm afraid it's lost. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: could you tell me why this

no longer appears, have I disabled it somehow???. Xray~Vision158 16:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Xray~Vision158: You probably didn't do anything active to disable it but If you are still on the same browser then it may have forgotten you were using book creator. You can restart it with "Create a book" under "Print/export" but your old work is probably lost. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I've just come on different browser and it's appeared again now so thank-you for the help.. Xray~Vision158 17:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

the Texan Tornadoes

I have an Explanation for texan Tornadoes.And the Emergencies for save the lifes. I was world champ in mat-physics and statistics.For understanding this Phenomenon it must to think to the dilation of climate zones.It is like an umbrella...etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel9990 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Noel9990. I moved your questions to the top of the page here, so it will be more likely to catch people's attention. If the matter is as urgent as you suggest, then perhaps you should contact the relevant government agencies so they can put an emergency plan in place, and spend your time helping them to be sure they get it right. That must be more important than taking the time to write an article about it in Wikipedia.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, it would appear that the original poster's solution involves original research, and Wikipedia does not permit original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

the Texan Tornadoes

Many people will die if you don t understand this text.My english is not so good. In Singapore every year is the season of cyclons.The people of texas must To take the same measure like!!! in Singapore.Every year in winter There will be tornadoes ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel9990 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

So-called cyclones in Singapore and so-called cyclones in Texas are two different types of storms. In Singapore, a cyclone is a tropical cyclone, known in North America as a hurricane. In Texas, a cyclone is a tornado. They are not the same, both dangerous, but not the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How to add a Title to a page created and take it 'live'

Hello, we are an organization beginning to highlight high profile NGOs in emerging nations and created a first article a few days ago. Our user name is NGOsofTheWorld but the first article should be named Arab Youth Venture Foundation. Further, we'd like to learn how to 'post' the articles once complete. We can't start on the second one until we learn/understand Wikipedia process! Thank you kindly, BobNGOsofTheWorld (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NGOsofTheWorld. I know that you are new to Wikipedia, so I hope you will not take my comments as too harsh, but I am obligated to explain our policies. When you use the words "we . . . our . . . we . . . we", that sets off alarm bells among experienced editors. Wikipedia does not allow group accounts or shared accounts. Wikipedia does not alllow user account names that imply that it is an official account of an organization. An account is for one person only. So, the first thing that you must do is abandon this account and start an individual account. Anyone else at your group who wants to edit Wikipedia needs to open their own account. Please read WP:ISU for the policy language, and please also read our policy on conflict of interest. If you are editing Wikipedia as part of your job duties, you are obligated to disclose this. Once you are in compliance with those policies, read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, NGOsofTheWorld. Please make sure that the individual NGOs are notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) before you start writing about them. If they are indeed "high profile" in their own countries, then they probably meet the criteria, but it will save you trouble if you check that at the start. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

how to reply

I am having trouble replying to a response to my question about creating a Wikipedia page for a specific playmate that I believe has gained enough notoriety to be deserving of her own Wikipedia page (she owns her own gym, has sponsors that make her one of the highest paid models in instagram, and is a publish author) instructions on how to reply would be greatly appreciated.Mr. Ice Buckett (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Mr. Ice Buckett. I moved your question to the top of the page here, so it will be more likely to catch people's attention. I'm not clear where you are trying to respond - is it here in the Teahouse, or on an article's page? Either way, it should just be a matter of clicking the "Edit" link beside the relevant section heading, and entering your response. Indent using colons (:) at the start of your response - add one more than the previous response so each successive response gets indented more. And you have already got the hang of signing your post so readers can tell who said what. As for your Playmate question, it all boils down to the same criteria as any other Notability question: is there substantial coverage about her (no pun intended) in independent sources (newspapers, magazines, television, etc.) I suggest that a good first step would be to put together a collection of those references, then we can discuss the question with something to reference, rather than trying to discuss it in abstract. Perhaps you could even tell us who you are considering?--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

See modeling notability guidelines and general notability guidelines. I personally disagree, in that I would !vote Keep on an article about a woman who was in the centerfold of a major soft-porn magazine as notable for that, but that is my opinion. I will point out that, aside from whether the woman is notable either as a model or as a businesswoman, the centerfold itself absolutely may not be submitted because the centerfold not only is copyrighted, but the copyright is usually fiercely defended by the publisher. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not ask the same question over and over again. It annoys the regulars and doesn't help. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Mandakinibansal99/sandbox

I reviewed User:Mandakinibansal99/sandbox and declined it as not neutral or encyclopedic. I was the third declining reviewer. I said: “There are several problems with this draft. It isn't clear whether it is meant to be an advertisement for a book or a reflection. It isn't a neutral encyclopedic draft. It isn't clear what its title is meant to be if it is accepted (although maybe that doesn't matter because maybe it will never be accepted). Its repeated submission after being declined, without significant improvement, is tendentious and may result in its deletion or a block. ” Because the draft was resubmitted repeatedly without improvement, I nominated it for MFD. I received the following from User:124.253.156.66 , who is probably User:Mandakinibansal99 logged out: “Thanks for being so rude and harsh. I am surprised how could you be so adamant with a person like me who is not visually competent. I just wanted the world to know that my book is a result of endless hardwork. I am not trying to advertise my book in any way. Neighter i am looking up any kind of sympathy. I gave up my government job because i couldnt see. I am not begging for anything. I dont understand why you are not able to understand my feeling. Once again thanks...” My real question for other experienced editors is whether I really was rude and harsh. If I was, then do other experienced editors have advice for how to deal with an editor who submits something over and over because they don’t understand how Wikipedia works? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you are being too harsh. We all have sympathy for the problems of the author, but we can't let this sympathy override what Wikipedia is, and what references articles need to have. There are lots of new editors who don't understand that Wikipedia is not a publicity site. Other than repeatedly asking them to read Wikipedia:Your first article, I don't know how else to emphasise to them that material will not be published here until it has been written about in reliable sources elsewhere. Dbfirs 18:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Erick Rosales

I reviewed Draft:Erick Rosales (after moving it from the sandbox into draft space) and declined it as a sub-stub of an auto-biography making no statement of notability. I received the following from User:Erick3814: “Hi, Erick3814 here, I just do not know how to talk about myself or whatever it is, feel free to talk to me......ER”. Does any other experienced editor have something to say to him? I assume that he doesn’t know what the purpose of Wikipedia is and thinks that an article is a social media profile, but I am not sure. As he says, he doesn’t know something. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

He's been editing for four years now, so he should know that Wikipedia is not a place for a personal profile. ... or am I being too harsh? Dbfirs 18:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes 'years' but only 140 edits, so easy to have not picked up on a lot of basics. KylieTastic (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair comment. Your help on his talk page seems just right. Dbfirs 19:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert I've left him a message that hopefully points them in the correct direction, if not pointed them to here to ask for more info. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

He's an on-and-off editor. At least he admits that he doesn't understand. After 140 edits, do not bite the newbies still does apply, and he admits that he doesn't understand. I will comment that many new editors evidently don't know what a user page is for, because there are many drafts at AFC that appear to be suitable for user pages. My own thought is that it should be more difficult but self-explanatory to submit a draft to AFC, in that the editor should be asked whether they really intend to submit the draft to article space, with a brief explanation of what Wikipedia is, and of the difference between a user page and an article page, but that is only my opinion. A user page isn't a social media profile, but it isn't as different from a social media profile as an article page, which is an encyclopedia entry, is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

As a side comment, in my opinion, no new editor should ever say do not bite the newbies. That is advice from one experienced editor to another experienced editor about inexperienced editors. When an editor cites that guideline in their own defense, they are not a newbie and are using it as a cudgel to deflect either friendly advice or caution. In my opinion, by the time an editor finds that guideline, they also ought to know to listen to other editors. That is a side comment. It doesn't have anything to do with any current editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Needing Help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aale_Ahmed_Shah

this is the draft that i created and i didn't see any fault or mistakes for which it is decline

if you can edit it and resubmit it and if you cant can you help me how to improve

Thanking You Chishtiyasufi (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem that I see is that the article is severely ungrammatical to the point where it is very difficult for an educated native reader and writer of English to read. It may be that you would be better off to create the article in your native language and submit it to the appropriate language Wikipedia. I can't point to any one place where the language is non-neutral (which is what the reviewer said), but the language in general is unfortunately of such poor quality that the article is nearly unreadable. I regret that you may have spent considerable time in trying to create a good article in English, but maybe you don't have the requisite level of skill in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Question about inserting image in Wikipedia

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse. One day I tried to set an image for a movie page. As I clicked on the "Insert Media" many images of a specific name came on the screen, then I tried to upload the picture, but after that it was saying that an unknown error occured....so please help me and tell how to post a picture on a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollywood junction (talk • contribs) 11:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Bollywood junction hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Wikipedia:Picture tutorial tells you what you need to know about adding images. If that doesn't answer your question, come back here and tell us what you're having trouble with.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

pictures

hello i have a question about how to put pictures on my talk and user page and how to decorate it do you think you can help me? i you can plz do i would really take a pleasure in it thx :) and have a happy new year — Preceding unsigned comment added by United kingdoms my home (talk • contribs) 14:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, United kingdoms my home. If you just want to add images, then have a read of Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, which explains how to do it. It occurs to me that you might also be referring to userboxes, which lots of editors use to give information about their background and interests. Let us know if you want more information on how to add those. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

United kingdoms my home, you have not made any edits to mainspace aside from a deleted article. Do you intend to use Wikipedia to edit the articles we have? Elizium23 (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Statistics

Hi, I'm new to editing and I know the basics about it but I would like to know how to do this particular thing. Could someone please advise me on how to put in maths formulas into wikipedia pages? If this is possible it would be greatly appreciated for someone to tell me.

Thanks, AelfalAelfal (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Aelfal - the Wikipedia:Tip of the day/July 14 Using Math may be helpful. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you JoeHebda, was helpful indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelfal (talk • contribs) 00:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to add, I don't know how much LaTeX you know, but if you have any trouble, I am happy to help. Just drop a note at my talk page. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Biographies

How do you add a Biography? Is their a standard template?CarolEvanoff (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, CarolEvanoff. There are not "templates" in that sense for articles, though the Manual of style does have recommendations about the structure of articles. Writing a new article that sticks is one of the hardest things to do in Wikipedia, and I would always advise new editors to get practice editing (and improving!) existing articles before embarking on a new article. But when you do want to create a new article, please read your first article very carefully, and then I strongy recommend using the article wizard to create your draft somewhere where you can work on it and eventually get it reviewed. If it is a biography of a living person, the requirements for verifiability are considerably stronger than for articles in general, so you will need to be very careful to make sure that everything in the article is referenced to a reliable published source. Finally, you have not said whose biography you are interested in creating, but if it is yourself or somebody you have a connection with, please read about conflict of interest first. Happy editing and happy new year! --ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

hello happy new year to all of you i made an article on PiyushGoel and i want live it on wikipedia it is my first article which i do not want to loose if i am wrong somewhere pl come forward and guide me

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PiyushGoel&action=edit&redlink=1

Dealing with possible COI editor?

Hi, a new user has been making multiple edits to the Parelli Natural Horsemanship article. However, we--me and another horse editor-- have had to revert everything they have done because it removed criticism of Parelli. It also added original research and/or was sourced off the website that is apparently run by the contributor. We explained what they did wrong, and they merely did it again. They say they are heavily involved in the PNH program and may be a certified trainer. Can some non-horse person please explain to them why the edits they are making are incorrect? I frankly don't even want to fool with this, both because I don't like the PNH program as a horse owner and because this kind of thing happens constantly in the horse articles. Thanks, White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 03:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I have given the editor a stern warning about this. If the editor continues along his course of action, please notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your contributions! CatcherStorm ^talk 13:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Created template through Template section on the article wizard. Rejected because "Submitted as an Article". How do I submit it as a "Draft template" or whatever appropriate heading applies ?

I submitted three draft Templates through the template section on the Article Wizard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Template). however two of them got rejected (one is pending review) as they 'were submitted as articles and not as templates'. How do i fix this ?

I have currently moved them to the Template name space and resubmitted them. The Templates in Question are 1. Has Tasks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Has_Tasks) 2. Baahubali Film Duology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Baahubali_Duology_(Film_Series)) 3. Nandi Award for best Director (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nandi_Award_for_Best_Director)

Pl help Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Agrawal.akshay98, welcome to the Teahouse. You did it right the first time except not starting the name with "Template:" in the box at Wikipedia:Article wizard/Template. There should be a grey "Template:" displayed from the start but it may be browser dependent and it doesn't stay there when you start writing. Thanks for moving the pages. The resubmit button doesn't add |type=template, so manually change {{subst:submit}} to {{subst:submit|type=template}} if you resubmit Template:Has Tasks. I have done it for Template:Baahubali Duology (Film Series) which was already resubmitted. Template submissions are relatively rare. The procedures may not be streamlined for it and the reviewers may not be used to it. The pages also show up in categories mostly used for article submissions and that can cause confusion. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter (talk · contribs). I have made the changes. Whats the about Template submissions being rare? Because two out of the three templates I have submitted pertain to currently lacking templates while the third one (Has Tasks)'s fate depends on if the community decides if it has fruitful use. I shall wait for a while for someone to review the other two and unless rejected, ill move the two the main template-space. Cheers. And Thanks again Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Agrawal.akshay98: Templates are very common but it's rare to submit them for review in the AfC process instead of creating them directly and just start using them, or starting a discussion on a relevant page. It's OK to use AfC though. AfC is mainly used by new users while templates are mainly created by experienced users. It's possible Robert McClenon didn't know templates can submitted at AFC and show up in AfC categories, but the declines may also just have been because they didn't have a "Template:" name. I have added |type=template to your resubmission of Template:Has Tasks so it also shows up in Category:Pending template and disambiguation AfC submissions. To demonstrate my rarity statement, it currently only has your three submissions while Category:Pending AfC submissions has 247. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

First, I didn't know that draft templates could be submitted via AFC. Second, although they looked like they might be templates rather than draft articles, they didn't have Template in the name, so that if I had accepted them, I would have moved them into article space. I now know that draft templates can be submitted via AFC, but if they don't have Template in the name, accepting them will move them into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys, Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) and PrimeHunter (talk · contribs). If there is anything else I ever need help with, i will make it apoint to reach out to you and bother you. Happy new Year and happy Editing. Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Agrawal.akshay98: Two submissions have now been moved to "Draft:Template:..." by a reviewer. When you enter a "Template:" name in the title box at Wikipedia:Article wizard/Template, "Draft:" is automatically added in front to get the wanted name format for template submissions at AfC. I didn't notice this earlier. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Procedure for emoving an "advert template" from an article

For the Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham article, there is an "advert template", without any specification for how the article is an "advertisement". There is no discussion on the Talk page and, having read and copy-edited the article, I can find no grounds for claiming the article is "boosting" the university (at least beyond the norms of similar-such univerisyt articles on Wikipedia). May I remove the advert template? Svabhiman (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Svabhiman, and welcome to the Teahouse. That article has been edited a lot since the advert tag was placed on it, including a couple of significant edits that (according to their summaries) were specifically aimed at reducing the promotional material there. So in your judgement, if you think the problem has been fixed, then you may remove the tag. However, in my view it still reads like an advertisement because most of the content is a detailed list of all the courses that it has to offer. It is almost like a catalogue showing what is being offered for sale. Compare it to the good university articles at Category:GA-Class Universities articles and you will see what I mean: they spend very little space discussing the details of what departments offer what combination of courses.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for you input. I tend to view "booster"-ism more in context. Many of the Indian university articles, unfortunately, give extended lists of courses offered. The reason I still believe the tag should be removed is because this particular univeristy. in the context of other Indian university articles, is not egregiously guilty of it. Should I go forward? Thanks! Svabhiman (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Beware of other stuff exists-type arguments, Svabhiman. The relevant standard is set out at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and just because some similar articles are in a poor state, doesn't mean that the standard is lower for the one that you are working on. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

THanks so much, Cordless Larry. I will refrain from removing the template and will proceed with maintaining the accepted universal standard. Thanks! Svabhiman (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Svabhiman, I didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't remove the template if you think that the issue has been addressed, although personally I think the article still needs work. You can always ask someone else, who hasn't been involved in editing the article, to take a look at it and give their view on whether it should be removed. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, thanks I understand. I actually agree though, the article does still need work. I was just not sure what standard I should use to make that assessment, but now I have it. Thanks! Svabhiman (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Svabhiman. A way of thinking about it that I find useful is that Wikipedia is not interested in what anybody (and that includes any organisation such as a school) says about themselves. It is likely that a detailed list of courses has been published only by the university (or by other organisations directly quoting the university), so it is probably not appropriate content for the article. Only if somebody unconnected with the university has discussed the separate courses in detail could those details be appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

{Svabhiman aand ColinFine, the way I see it, is to consider the likely reader. Material that will be of interest to only an prospective student, belongs only on the university's own web site, where anyone interested will sure know how to find it. An encyclopedia is intended for the general public,and should dcontain the information an interested person in the general public might want to know (for example. "This candidate for political office attended X university. I wonder what it's like?"). Where it is published is irrelevant. The university normally publishes general information about itself , as well as student-specific information, and the general information, if uncontroversial and about routine facts, is an acceptable source for an article. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

To temporarily delete an article and re-create it

Hi again, Teahouse. This New Year has started off as quite a disappointment on Wikipedia, as I was hoping to create an article to do with 2016 at around midnight (UTC). Unfortunately, a user had already created the article 24 hours earlier to my dismay. The list is not factually correct until 12 PM, as this would be when all of the nations in the world have entered 2016. Would it be possible to just temporarily delete the article (of which there are numerous errors), and have it re-created with the proofread version I had pre-created earlier in December? Thanks. Neve-selbert 08:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Stop forum-shopping. If there are mistakes, go fix them. BethNaught (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. It is true that there was no deadline for the submitter to create the article, but there was no emergency requiring that the article be deleted just so as to give you your satisfaction of being the Master Timekeeper. (If the posting of the article creating a world-wide life-threatening emergency, you didn't say so.) By your multiple efforts to delete the article, you were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If there are formatting or factual errors, discuss them or fix them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, it is not "factually inaccurate, misleading and false" to state, for example, that Barack Obama is the 2016 leader of the USA before 05:00 (UTC), so that is not one of the things that needs correction. I grant there is a very slim chance that a leader somewhere could have been overthrown or even die in the few hours between - if that is the case then a quick update is all that is required.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The page creator actually made an unattributed verbatim copy of the 2015 list, including 104 leaders who were already shown as ending in 2015. See Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#Attribution. That was silly and it would have been better to not create the page like that but wait for somebody with a clue what they were doing. But by the time Neve-selbert tried to get it deleted, it had already been updated by somebody else. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

In that case, it was silly vs. silly. Creating the unattributed verbatim copy with anachronisms was silly, and it was also silly for User:Neve-Selbert to go to such great and bizarre length to have the article deleted. Oh well. Any remaining errors can be corrected by normal editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Attempting to create a wikipedia page for Ava Cantrell

Ava Cantrell is an actor who is in a new movie "Lights Out" 2016. Her name has been added but there is no page for her yet. I'm trying to create it with her IMDB profile. She is best know for her role on Nickelodeon's Haunted Hathaways (Penelope Pritchard - which is on Wikipedia page) Please help if you can. Thanks Outsideofbox (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Outsideofbox - Looking at the actress' imdb page, it's probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, right now, she doesn't meet notability criteria. Her role in the Nick piece wasn't that significant, and that's her best credit. After the two films come out in 2016, she might qualify. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Outsideofbox. The key to a good Wikipedia article is that it must be based on reliable published sources. iMDB is not regarded as a reliable source, because much of the information in it is user generated (Wikipedia is not a reliable sources for the same reason). If you can find several reliable published sources, by people unconnected with her, then there can be an article. I suggest you read your first article, and then create a draft using the article wizard. But I would always suggest that before you even attempt the difficult task of writing a new article, you get familiar with Wikipedia and how to edit it by improving some existing articles. --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Outsideofbox, welcome to the Teahouse! Not every actor is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Throughout the years, Wikipedians have developed guidelines that help us determine which topics are notable enough for Wikipedia. The general guideline for notability is that articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Basically, since we do not accept original research, Wikipedia only writes what reliable sources have written about, and if no reliable sources exist that document a subject, Wikipedia probably should not have an article about that subject. IMDB is unfortunately not a reliable enough source to use for Wikipedia because much of its content is user-generated. In addition to the aforementioned general notability guideline, we also have specific notability guidelines for actors. An actor is likely to be notable if they either:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Your article on Ava Cantrell was deleted because an administrator felt that it did not clearly indicate a credible claim of significance. In other words, your article did not show why Cantrell is important. I invite you to give our page Wikipedia:Your first article a read, as it does a good job of explaining our expectations for new articles, and I also recommend using the Article Wizard to help you determine whether your topic is suitable for Wikipedia at this time. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them at this Teahouse. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Filters and verifiability

Hi, am having difficulty writing an entry for an organisation in New Zealand. I understand that Wikipeida is not an advertising medium, but we have had people ask us why the BRNZ campaign does not appear in Wikipedia. So I thought I'd write about it, trying to keep it neutral. The organisation founded in 2011 but has not created a trust or society, nor been active in the media. There are no independent information sources about it, so I can't reference anything except its own website. This gives me a problem when attempting to verify it. What can I do about that? Am I just writing this wrong for it to be kicking up so many problems? The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Ribbon_New_Zealand BlackRibbonNZ (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi BlackRibbonNZ, welcome to the Teahouse! I greatly appreciate your interest in expanding Wikipedia, as well as your efforts to keep the article neutral. Unfortunately, the problem you are describing appears to be with the subject. Not every organization is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, the general guideline for notability is that articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If your organization hasn't received enough coverage outside its own website, then it's possible that the organization itself might not be suitable for an article on Wikipedia at this time.

If you are affiliated with the organization, you have what we call a conflict of interest. Editors have conflicts of interest with subjects that they are closely connected to, and they make it very difficult for editors to uphold the three core content policies of verifiability, neutrality, and no original research when they contribute to areas where they have a conflict of interest. As a result, conflict-of-interest editing is controversial within the community, and it is strongly discouraged by community guidelines. My recommendation is to convert your article to a draft, and submit it through the Articles for Creation project, which allows experienced editors to review your work and make suggestions before it is published. I also strongly recommend giving our "plain and simple conflict of interest guide" a read. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. I don't know how to convert to draft though? I read the draft page, but it doesn't tell me how to convert a published topic to draft. I've also changed my username - it didn't occur to me not to have one that related to the subject. Sorry.

RRNZ2016 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I have moved your article to a draft Draft:Black Ribbon New Zealand. When you become autoconfirmed (4 days, 10 edits) you will be able to move articles by pressing "More" and then "Move". When you are ready to submit your draft for review, just put {{subst:submit}} at the top. Happy editing! Happy Squirrel (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Learn

Hello, maybe ye can learn my work with HTML? --L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 15:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lukaslt13. Unfortunately, your question does not make sense to me. Could you try to improve the grammar, or rephrase it in a different way? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Lukaslt13, are you asking for help in learning how to use HTML? If so, Help:HTML in wikitext may be helpful. Otherwise, you will just have to wait for someone else to help you, since I am not familiar with HTML or coding in general. CabbagePotato (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If this is not about using HTML on Wikipedia, the computing reference desk may be able to help.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh thank you Vchimpanzee. --L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 17:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

How do I properly format two nearly identical references?

I know how to handle duplicate identical references with ref name= ... but how do I handle two nearly identical references? For example:

Bryan, Cyril (1932). The Ebers Papyrus. New York: D. Appleton and Company. p. 15. Bryan, Cyril (1932). The Ebers Papyrus. New York: D. Appleton and Company. p. 44 and 60.

The references point to specific page numbers, which I want to retain, but cite the same book. I could make the second reference a free-form ibid ... but that strikes me as bad form, since if someone reorganizes the text, the references may not be in proper relation to each other, and the ibid would appear to refer to a totally different source. I'm sure there people have run into this before, and have some trick to handle this, but I haven't come across it, yet. Any ideas or pointers? Thanks!

Hi-storian (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hi-storian. There are different ways of handling the situation, depending mostly on editors' personal preference. I like using the template {{rp}}, as it's often the easiest. Essentially, you are using the standard ref name method for duplicate citations, but appending the {{rp}} template to indicate the page numbers in the body of the article, rather than including that information in the citation itself. Using your example,

Cited text.<ref name=Bryan>Bryan, Cyril (1932). ''The Ebers Papyrus''. New York: D. Appleton and Company.</ref>{{rp|15}} Cited text from other page.<ref name=Bryan />{{rp|44, 60}}

would produce:

Cited text.^[1]^: 15 Cited text from other page.^[1]^: 44, 60

Another way of doing it is to use short citations, which is useful if you have multiple sources to cite. The page Help:Shortened footnotes describes how to set them up, but once again, I feel {{rp}} is easier. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b Bryan, Cyril (1932). The Ebers Papyrus. New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Mz7 Okay ... I do want to keep the page numbers, so it looks like rp is the way to go, here. Thanks! On a similar question ... what about multiple references to a single website, but differing web pages? Hi-storian (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: In that situation, I would probably treat the two web pages as different sources and create separate citations for each web page. It's like the many articles on Wikipedia, they're all of one collective work called Wikipedia, but each is a separate source on its own topic. Mz7 (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7: Okay, thanks again! The reason I was asking is unlike Wikipedia, where each article has different authors, the pages of this site are all the same author. (Basically, it's a self-published web book.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by High-storian (talk • contribs) 00:40, 2 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Hi, Hi-storian. Just a note to be careful with self-published sources - see WP:USERGENERATED. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Thanks, Larry. That's a good link. I was pretty certain that there was some caution out there about using websites as a "source", but I'm still kindda new with this. Unfortunately, it looks like references tend to be neglected in the subject I'm researching ... many of them being naked URL's to dead links or cryptic references to books and articles that you have to research to identify. So I've been focusing on formatting references to Citation Style 1 and fully identifying the source, first, then on the quality of the source as a second phase. One article I worked on had a number of children's books (one for ages 9 and up) as sources. Is there a page somewhere that gives a broad overview of what are good (and bad) sources to use? I'm sure there's a guideline somewhere, but I'm not sure how to find it. Thanks again! Hi-storian (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Start with WP:reliable sources. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Websites aren't a problem in and of themselves, Hi-storian, it's the self-published sources that you need to take care with. The BBC or The New York Times website are considered reliable for most claims. Someone's personal website isn't, unless they are a noted expert on the topic, and even then there should be concerns about the lack of editorial control over the content. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

For formatting bare URLs, reFill has saved me an inordinate amount of time. It won't fix all links, or do anything to references without a link, but just running it on a page can easily cut the work in half. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

what is the problem in this page

well i need to learn and i am really not able to figure out what the issue in this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youssry_Saleh_%26_Partners Mohamed metawea (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that the article provides no evidence that its subject is notable, in the idiosyncratic sense in which that word is used here. The article lists several references (only one of which is actually referred to from the text of the article), but they are directory entries, which confirm the existence of the subject, but not its notability. Maproom (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mohamed metawea. I did a quick review of the references in Youssry Saleh & Partners, and it appears that they consist of routine directory listings or material produced by the firm or its principals. We need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. If a major Egyptian newspaper or business magazine has published a detailed article about the firm, which includes independent reporting rather than reprinting a press release, that would be a good source. Please also read Referencing for beginners. In my opinion, the bare URLs are ugly and ininformative, and slow down the work of reviewers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one who feels that A7 does not apply? A7 is for no claim of significance, not for all non-notable topics. Notability issues are supposed to be handled at AfD. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Now at AFD here.--ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

New article advice

Hi! I'm Sarthak Sharma of clsss7 from India. Respective helpers, As I'm a new user so I don't know the points keeping in mind while editng or creating our own article. Please also tell me how to create our userpage and namespaces. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarthakniar (talk • contribs)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have dropped off some information at your talk page. If you have more questions, don't hesitate to ask! Happy Squirrel (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Seabelo Chabo John and User: Seabelo Chabo John

I reviewed Draft:Seabelo Chabo John and declined it as containing too much peacock language. User: Seabelo Chabo John then posted to my talk page: “I have been unreasonably blocked. Please help”. As a very new user, they may not understand the difference between a block and a decline. They may also not understand that the submission of autobiographies is strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest. This draft illustrates one of the reasons why autobiographies are discouraged, which is that often they contain too much peacock language. Does any other experienced editor have any friendly but policy-based advice for this very new user? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Another reason he may think he was blocked may be related to the fact that he misspelled his name either in the draft or the username: The author is User:Seabelo Cahbo John. (Cahbo vs Chabo) —teb728 t c 23:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't noticed the distinction. However, he did manage to log in to ask about the "unreasonable block" and so was presumably spelling the username correctly. That makes me think that he doesn't know the difference between a decline and a block. That distinction is one of the subtle distinctions that inexperienced editors often don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Hey Robert. I wonder if the "block" might refer to the fact that their recent edits to Botswana were (justifiably) reverted? Getting back to your original question, I think explaining that we discourage autobiographies is perfectly fine, if only because it's difficult to write them in a neutral manner. I think one approach here, if the draft is indeed an autobiography, is that the editor can take a bit of content from this draft (e.g. nationality, profession, religion, even some educational details) and incorporate it into a userpage, with the understanding that it needs to adhere to what folks cannot have on their userpages, but that they're encouraged to use that space to talk about why or how they want to contribute to this project. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That's useful advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Growtopia (Game)

Hi guys. I need sources which are reliable and can be added to the draft without info that repeats info from other sources, or in other words, sources with info that I can stack up to make a good article. I only have limited time in editing, so it would be great help if you can name out some sources. Thanks! Democratics (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Democratics. The Teahouse is intended to be a place to learn about editing Wikipedia, rather than asking for editing help per se. Your request might be better directed at WikiProject Video games, where you will find lots of people with an interest in writing and improving articles on computer games. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

[Bryan-1] Bryan, Cyril (1932). The Ebers Papyrus. New York: D. Appleton and Company.

[1]