Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 545

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 540

←

Archive 543

→

Unhelpful editor

HI all, Just wondering, I made an innocent change to a page, Oliver Cromwell, about his early childhood. It reflected a recently published biography's findings. Sadly, another editor seems intent on rejecting my changes in favour of older, less rigorous and more inaccurate work. What is the best way to resolve this conflict?

Desperadowaitingforatrain (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Desperadowaitingforatrain ... Discuss the change on the article talk page. TimothyJosephWood 20:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Read the dispute resolution policy. This is a content dispute. The policy will tell you, as did Timothy Joseph Wood, to discuss on the article talk page. It will then provide various options if discussion on the article talk page is inconclusive, but discussion on the article talk page precedes all of those other options. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

wikipedia linking

how can i get my Wikipedia page on my website?Sanjana puri (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sanjana puri I'm not sure I understand your question. If you are saying you want to mirror SpiderG on a website other than Wikipedia, you copy it to the website and include a link to the Wikipedia article to fulfill copyright requirements. If you just want to link to it, you use the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpiderG —teb728 t c 12:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you check out my wikipedia article?

Hi! I´m currently writing an article about a painting of Vincent Van Gogh for my Academic writing class in college (User:Thelmadatter/Imperial_Fritillaries_in_a_Copper_Vase). However, I am new in Wikipedia and I am not a native English speaker. It would be of great help if you could read my article and give some feedback, as I would like it to be as best as possible and reach Wikipedia standards.

Thank you!

Frida Mo. (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Frida Mo.: Welcome to the Teahouse. I think that you have made a very good start with your draft article. By the way, your instructor Leigh Thelmadatter is a very highly regarded Wikipedia editor. Please give her my warm regards. Your English prose is pretty good, although there are a few minor errors that will be easy to correct. You speak English much better than I speak Spanish.

I believe that most paintings by Van Gogh are notable, and commend you for writing about this topic. I encourage you to find some better sources for your article. Several of your sources are from museums where the painting has appeared as part of traveling Van Gogh exhibitions. These sources tend to be brief and have an at least partially promotional purposes in encouraging people to attend these exhibitions. I also noticed a reference to a children's book and a website that sells prints of Van Gogh paintings. These seem weak to me. I suggest that you look for discussion of this painting in academic biographies of Van Gogh, and also in books by art historians that survey his works. Summarizing this kind of coverage would strengthen your draft article, in my opinion. Also, please be aware that copyright has expired on Van Gogh's works. Accordingly, you can include a photo of the painting in your article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Three such images are already available at Wikimedia Commons (and look astonishlingly different). It would also be helpful to include a link like this: imperial fritillary. Maproom (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia's confidential information policy

I don't understand why, in order for users to have access to non-public information (e.g. to become an account creator), they have to give up their own right to anonymity by signing an agreement with Wikimedia. Also, why do these users need proof that they are over either 16 or 18 years of age? Thanks, Red Panda 25 16:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User:RedPanda25 - You may have misunderstood who need to provide their true identity to the Wikimedia Foundation. That only applies to a very small subset of trusted people, such as arbitrators, stewards, and checkusers. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:I did not misunderstand who needs this. Particularly, this applies to users in the WP:ACC account-request project. Please continue your explanation. Thanks, Red Panda 25 16:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Because the Foundation say so, Wikimedia Foundation's policy regarding access to non-public data - linked from the page you mentioned - explains why. Nthep (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I will try to explain, although I am not the WMF and do not have access to their private thinking. The editors who have to give up their own right to anonymity, which is really pseudonymity, are those who have access themselves to non-public information. They are being trusted with information that is being entrusted to them. In particular, account creators will be given real identity information for the people who ask them to create accounts. They have signed agreements with the WMF that they will protect that information. They must prove that they are of legal age so that the WMF knows that they were legally qualified to sign those non-disclosure agreements. That is the way I understand it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Filmography: about or by?

I noticed that the article about Romeo Dallaire lists a filmography, but he is not a film maker. These are films in which he appears as a subject. Should they be moved to a different place, and if so, what would the heading be (perhaps "In popular culture"). This question also applies to songs and books written about a subject as opposed to by the subject. Thanks Aphra (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The main heading is 'Bibliography and Filmography' with subheadings of 'Books' and 'Films'. I would get rid of the main heading. The books are General Dallaire's own. The films are about General Dallaire. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Still doesn't make sense to me. Generally, how do we differentiate between a work by the subject and a work about the subject?Aphra (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The words by and about are often used to make the distinction. I have solved the problem by actually eliminating the film list as the films are discussed in another section anyway. I also made a few other improvements. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Federația Internaționala a Asociațiilor Inventatorilor - Can someone write in Romanian?

I reviewed Draft:Federația Internaționala a Asociațiilor Inventatorilor and declined it, mistakenly stating that it was written in Spanish. I have been advised that it is written in Romanian. I then received a reply on my talk page:

Hello you have declined my new page entitled: Federația Internaționala a Asociațiilor Inventatorilor with the reason: The submission appears to be written in Spanish.
The page is in Romanian and represents the Romanian version (translation) of the following page: International Federation of Inventors' Associations
I am the Romanian Member of the IFIA so is my duty to make it in my native language.
I am new on Wikipedia. So if there is any other problem on this page, please feel free to inform me.

Does someone here know Romanian? Can someone please advise User:SanduAV to submit this to the Romanian Wikipedia, and how to do that? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I create now the page on RO.Wiki. thanx. SanduAV — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanduAV (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That seems to be that. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Uploading a photo

Hi, I'm just wondering how I would be able to use a picture from Facebook while I'm editing a page? The page is the Ardee Wikipedia page and i'm editing the soccer part of it. I've received permission to use the photo from the owner.ACFC-2017 (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello ACFC-2017, welcome to the Teahouse! One of Wikipedia's fundamental principles is that it is free content that anyone can edit, use, and distribute. In accordance with that goal, we require that the images you use are also made freely available. In other words, we will need permission to use to photo not just in Wikipedia, but by anyone who uses Wikipedia. We especially take copyrights very seriously. The easiest way to contribute such an image is to ask the owner to create an account at the Wikipedia Commons (which is where Wikipedia hosts its free images) and upload the image themselves using their Upload Wizard. Alternatively, you may ask that they make a public post on Facebook which explicitly states that they release the image under one of the acceptable free licenses – I recommend one of the Creative Commons licenses, as they are the most commonly used. For more information, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you need help, feel free to leave a follow up question at this Teahouse. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability

I believe this is Notable -

In 2010, Bruce Beinfield FAIA became the first Connecticut architect since 2001 to be elected into the prestigious American Institute of Architects College of Fellows in the category of design. This is the highest honor that the AIA can bestow.

Please confirm, thanks InsightOut1 (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, InsightOut1 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Notability by Wikipedia standards is not quite the same as the general language meaning of notability. Yes, this fact might be worth including in Wikipedia, but it would need to be in the context of an article supported by reliable sources. All by itself, this fact does not support the creation of an article about the subject. If that's your intent, you need to do more work to find more sources. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks! - this is just the basis of profile. Will cite Awards and reliable sources

InsightOut1 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@InsightOut1: Hello. In just a few seconds, I was able to find a 20 paragraph article about Beinfield in the New York Times. That is strong evidence that he is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

That article says he's an architect. But it doesn't mention his work, only his disagreements with his neighbours and the planning authorities. Maproom (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom: Please read it again. The article mentions the award he won, says that he is an influential architect in that town, says his buildings define the character of the town center, includes a photo of several of those buildings, and discusses two alternate house designs. That's significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

But InsightOut1 please do not think of a "profile". Wikipedia does not contain profiles. It contains articles, which summarise what independent published reliable sources say about a subject. The subject of an article has no control over its content, (it may contain things that the subject would prefer not to see there, if they have been reliably published and a consensus of editors is that they should appear in the article) and it should not refer to anything that the subject has said or done unless an independent sources has quoted or reported that. --ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Cullen and Colin thanks you for checking this out. Colin you brought to light an interesting aspect of this. So if the subject of the article has even the slightest bad press, the subject is vulnerable to the possible edit that could be negative sounding, despite the other positive attributes. Sounds like in order to confidently and positivly publish on Wiki, there can be no previously published "bad"news ?InsightOut1 (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@InsightOut1: that's not the case. Neutrality of content is a core Wikipedia policy, so if there are negative aspects of a subject's history then Wikipedia should report those. However there are other guides like WP:UNDUE that require editors to ensure that no aspect of an article is given more coverage than it deserves in relation to the overall coverage of the subject. Nthep (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

InsightOut1 A prominent example is the article about Oscar Pistorius. He rose to prominence as an elite athlete, and had a high profile career as a sprinter that lasted several years. Then one night he shot and killed his girlfriend. The trail and subsequent appeals were covered intensely by global media. Our article consequently covers both aspects of his notability. Take a look at the current article and compare it to how it looked before the shooting incident. On the other hand the DUI arrest of a prominent Hollywood star might barely rate a mention, or even not be included at all, particularly if there was no trial and the incident had limited news coverage lasting only a day or two. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Roger and Nthep That incident was a big deal in a small town and the negative was overblown. But the Notable Person definately would not like to revisit the unpleasantness and so I need to be cautious on his behalf. Is there a way to pre-qualify the positive (80+ awards and an exemplary record of urban revitalization) vs that controversial spell? thanks InsightOut1 (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I can only repeat what Colin wrote above, it's not up to the subject to decide what does or doesn't get mentioned about them. You can create an article about this person containing what you wish but if others add material the subject does not like then as long as all relevant Wikipedia policies, including, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP are abided by (or the consensus is that they are being abided by) then the material will remain regardless of the subject's desire. Nthep (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

InsightOut1 The only actual right article subjects have on WP is to not be libeled. I have briefly searched for news sources about the subject and didn't find anything significantly negative, so perhaps your "fear" might be exaggerated. Unless the "big deal in a small town" actually reached mainstream national or state-wide news media, it's probably not going to be significant enough to be included, or it might only rate a brief mention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Actually, this "big deal in a small town" received significant coverage in the New York Times. I provided a link to that article earlier in this discussion. Check it out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

How am I able to add my name and date of certification to your "List of Eagle Scouts?"

I reviewed your "List of Eagle Scouts" page, and found I wasn't listed. My certificate attests that I, "Robert J(sic) Cardwell, Troop 557, Chicago IL, having satisfactorily completed the requirements is hereby certified as an Eagle Scout by the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America, March 30, 1960.″

My question is: how do I go about adding my name to the list aforementioned? Solowell (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The List of Eagle Scouts article should only list persons for which we already have articles for (i.e. notable), or (at least) those who are mentioned in professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of the subject and the Boy Scouts. Wikipedia is not a directory, we would not list all Eagle Scouts ever, just those who have received independent coverage in reliable sources.

Also, if there was an article about you, it would be better to not edit it or any page about yourself. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Why get rid of AFT

I am new to Wikipedia and, while researching the different tools available to me, came across this feedback tool and was just wondering why it is no longer in use. To me it seems like an excellent way to make editors aware of problems in certain articles while connecting said editors to the much broader user-base of non-editors. Thanks for the help, Isaac868 (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It was a maintenance nightmare, since readers were using it for all kinds of inappropriate purposes ranging from libel to trying to contact the article subject, all of which had to be monitored and moderated, but there was no corresponding increase in the number of admins to deal with the additional work. Of the comments posted using it, only 10% were considered useful and only 5% led to some kind of action; despite the good intentions of the team who developed it, what they effectively created was a vast graffiti wall. ‑ Iridescent 09:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Changing user name.

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and I want to change my user name to something neutral, i.e; isn't my actual name. I was wondering how I can do that? Also, I don't want to delete this account and make another as this is for a class in college. Any help/ advise would be greatly appreciated, thanks! AmyEastwood (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, AmyEastwood. It isn't actually possible to delete an account in any case, as all edits to Wikipedia need to be attributable to the account that made them. The process for changing your username is explained at Wikipedia:Changing username. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit a new page

Hi, everyone. Can you help me?. How to create a new page. Using infobox... (Bby89 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

What do you want help doing? If you want to create a new page, you don't need to create an infobox for it. Creating a new article page, in particular, which must have references, is the hardest task in Wikipedia. If you do want to create a new article, it would be a good idea to create it in draft space and submit it for review via Articles for Creation. However, what do you want help doing? Creating an article, or creating an infobox, or both? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Bby89, An infobox is not quite "the icing on the cake" the way that a photo is, but it is definitely something that you should worry about after the important stuff: well written and well referenced neutral text summarising what reliable sources have published about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity Page

Hello I was wondering how to make a celebrity page for a celebrity. By adding the box on the side with all the information of where they are from, where they live, and what tv show they are on etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biancaperez (talk • contribs) 09:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Biancaperez. See Wikipedia:Your first article. An encyclopedic biography does not need an infobox on the side; the important thing is that the references to reliable sources, and that the article be based on those sources. —teb728 t c 12:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I would add something. An infobox is not an article. Occasionally new editors create an infobox without article text. If it is submitted to Articles for Creation, it is declined both because it has no references and because it has no text. (Even if the infobox had references, it would still be declined.) If it is entered directly in article space, it will be deleted. It isn't essential to create an infobox; that can be left for later editors. It is essential to create the article body. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

One other thing, Biancaperez: Wikipedia does not have "celebrity pages" any more than it has "profiles". It has articles, which are neutrally-written summaries about what has been published in reliable sources about the subject. This might seem a nit-picky comment, but I believe that if more people understood this, there would be a lot fewer frustrating episodes of people creating pages in good faith which are not acceptable to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

how can I share the draft of my new article with a fellow worker?

How can I show my article to a colleague to review it?Pogga D (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Pogga D: just tell them where it is. User:Pogga_D/sandbox, I assume. Or give its full url, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pogga_D/sandbox . Maproom (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Pogga D. Just to add, if you wish to use the Articles for Creation process, which allows you to submit a draft article for review by an experienced editor before publication, simply add the following code to the top of your draft: {{subst:submit}}. Since the process can be backlogged, it will be a few weeks before it is reviewed. If the reviewer believes the draft is suitable to be published, they will publish the draft for you. If not, they will decline the submission and let you know how you can improve the draft (unless it is a problem with the subject of the draft, in which case, they will let you know how you could choose a better topic). Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Bangbuathong Market

I reviewed Draft:Bangbuathong Market and declined it after a previous reviewer had declined it. The first reviewer said that it read like a tourist brochure. I said that it still read like an advertisement. The author, User:Earthkuppum, then asked me: “Could you suggest me which part of my article need to change or delete? Then I will make it better. I want you to suggest me because I have no idea with it.” The question of what needs to be changed or deleted in a draft to get it accepted is not always a simple question. (Some new editors seem to think that making a draft acceptable is a matter of making one small change.) If the market isn’t notable, no amount of adding to it will make it notable. I don't think personally, reading the draft but without doing a Google search, have a feeling that the market is notable and just needs a small change to the draft. Do other experienced editors have comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Earthkuppum, I think your first task should be to search for reliable sources that are independent of the market, which can be used to support material already in the article and to expand it. If these are good sources, they will help contribute to establishing the notability of the topic. Look for coverage in newspapers, books and online magazines with a reputation for editorial quality control in particular. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou so much two of you.

my articles is refered from news online and my experience but the news has only Thai language sources. http://www2.manager.co.th/Travel/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9560000027440

and

http://www.manager.co.th/Columnist/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9560000036126 Earthkuppum (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I need to replace an imge I have already uploaded. Could you advise me how to do it please.

How do I upload a replacement image?Pogga D (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Pogga D. If you want to upload a new image, to go https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and click upload. If you want to replace an image already on a page, simply paste the new image name in the wiki markup where it says File:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjosephwood (talk • contribs) 15:21, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

@Pogga D: You can also navigate to the image's description page, and there will be a link under the "File history" section that says Upload a new version of this file. For an example of an image description page, see commons:File:EC 1930.jpg, which you uploaded to the Commons. Mz7 (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I cut and paste

I am working on a wiki page for a school. A lot of the data can come from their newly launched website. Can I cut and paste text from the website onto the wiki page? GeorgeWashingtonDoane (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, GeorgeWashingtonDoane, I'm sorry, but that would be a clear violation of the school's copyright. What you should do is put the information into your own words, and use the website as a reference. Rojomoke (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You can also use news reports of the school's opening for sources (I'm assuming it's probably a newer school, since the website just launched), but again, you will have to rewrite what they say in your own words. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

But also remember, GeorgeWashingtonDoane, that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anybody, or any organisation, says about themselves. It is only interested in what independent sources have published about them. If you can make a substantial article from indepdendent sources, then you can add some uncontorversial factual information from the subject's own website; but if "a lot of the data" is coming from their own website, then it is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Coordinates.

How to add coordinates of a location to an article, in an infobox, or how to add infobox in particular to an article? Ankit ☎ 19:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Ankit2299: welcome to the Teahouse, Sorry it has taken so long to respond to your questions. For your question about coordinates see:

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Geographical_coordinates

For your question about info boxes see:

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thank you for helping. You were of great help to me. But I still am not completely satisfied, hope you could tell me how to get coordinates of a plce.Ankit ☎ 21:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There are many ways. The way I've currently been using is to locate it on Google maps, then double-click on the location. That opens up a pop-up with the coordinates; click on them and they will appear in the search box in the upper left corner of the map where they can be copied.--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, the link I provided has a sentence shortly after the quick guide with "obtain the coordinates" is a link which brings you to a page with lots of ways.--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ankit2299: Basically, "look at an article that does what you want and see how it's done there". Coordinates are done using {{Coord}}. There's a |display= parameter which controls how the coordinates appear. The options are "inline" (where the coords appear in the text, commonly as a parameter to an infobox), "title" (at the top right of the article), or both ("inline,title", or abbreviated "it"). That third option is probably what you want. That's assuming you have the coordinates. As User:Sphilbrick has mentioned, getting them can require some work.

Wiipedia has generic infobox templates that can generate any kind of infobox you like, but I would suggest not trying to use one of those. Instead, search similar articles for a specific infobox for the kind of article you're working on and use that. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Sphilbrick: and @71.41.210.146: for assisting me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit2299 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Jungo, Inc.

Hello, I am brand new to Wikipedia and created my first article yesterday. I edited the article many times trying to abide by the guidelines. The article was tagged for speedy deletion as some of the words contained marketing words. I wrote in my talk section, deleted what I thought was the advertising material and saw that my page was deleted today. 1. Can someone explain what it was about my article specifically that was promotional, so I can then remove it? 2. Why didn't anyone respond to my talk section and just delete the article? 3. Should I re-write the entire article over? AshleyLaura (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AshleyLaura. I can't see your deleted article as I'm not an administrator, so I can't answer your first question. I suggest that if you want to try again, you create a draft via Wikipedia:Your first article. That way, you can get constructive feedback before the article goes live, and it will be much less likely to be deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

AshleyLaura, based on what I can find on search, the company that you're trying to write an article about does not pass our notability guidelines for companies. Specifically, your article needs multiple, independent sources about the company itself rather than links to the company's website or press releases. If you don't have those, your article will be deleted no matter how neutrally it is written. shoy (reactions) 20:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

africa destubathon

How do I sign up to participate in the Africa Destubathon? I went to the participants page to sign up, but I don't understand where to sign. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!Ucmercedstudent209 (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ucmercedstudent209 See Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon/Participants TimothyJosephWood 21:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Do I sign using Edit Source?Ucmercedstudent209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page

I'm brand new and don't know how to create a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22mikpau (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@22mikpau:Start at WP:YFA. However, starting a new article can be difficult for new users. Consider working on existing articles instead. RudolfRed (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Bold textThanks for the advise. Delete this if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22mikpau (talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Verify neutrality of technology article

Hi!

I would like to verify whether the infobox about "close connection contributors" can be removed from this article:

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

If not, I would appreciate any suggestions for improvements on the article.

OpenFirmware (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talk page with User:MrOllie, the editor who applied the COI template. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

New Article Question

Hi, how can I create a new article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farid Fesh (talk • contribs) 11:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

See the comments ~~immediately below~~ two topics above. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Template Message removal

Re: Page David Fellman - I am unclear on how to go about getting a template, placed in 2009 about the need for citations, revised or removed. Since 2009, substantial citations have been added to page. More citations will be added too. PickleQuip (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, PickleQuip. Any editor may remove a maintenance template if they think it no longer applies. Be sure to explain in the edit summary why you think that appropriate, so that nobody will mistake the edit for vandalism. Looking at the article, it certainly has many references now, though I haven't looked at the quality of them. In my view, the article lists far too many of Fellman's works: a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what people unconnected with the subject have published about the subject, nothing more; but as regards the number of references, it is fine. --ColinFine (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. So, you consider me an "editor" with the power to remove the maintenance template entirely as long as I put in the notes why I think it should be removed. I guess I didn't consider myself an acceptable source take that action. I don't want any trouble! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PickleQuip (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I put a freely available paper in my sandbox?

I'm a big fan of Alan Sokal's hoax, which you can read about here. I want to put a wikitext version of his paper in my sandbox so I can practice making citations quickly and so I can teach the world a lesson that lots of citations and academic language can be totally wrong. It's already freely available on his website, and it's for an educational reason, so can I do this? If not then please send someone to wipe the sandbox history.Reason is Immortal (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Reason is Immortal. I see two potential problems here. Firstly, even if something is freely available on the internet, it might not be available under the Creative Commons licence that all material on Wikipedia is made available under. Secondly, WP:NOTWEBHOST specifies that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a web host for material that is not part of or related to the encyclopedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Just got rid of it. Thanks! Reason is Immortal (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Reason is Immortal. I think you should request deletion, following the instructions at WP:U1, to erase the page history, just to make sure on the copyright front. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, if I do that, can I use my sandbox again? Reason is Immortal (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Reason is Immortal. You'll just have to edit the page once it's been deleted, and you'll have a sandbox back. Unless it is specifically called for, deletion of a Wikipedia page doesn't involve preventing it recreation. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

by going through the article want to know the exact procedure regarding the article approval — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.140.184.15 (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC+9)‎

Log for articles created

Is there a log for newly created articles? I know there are logs for blocks, deletions, and user creation, but I can't seem to find one for articles. Zupotachyon (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You could try Special:NewPagesFeed. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Zupotachyon: In addition to Special:NewPagesFeed, if you would like to find a log of all page creations by a specific user, you can use Special:Contributions and check the box that reads "Only show edits that are page creations". You can also limit the namespace to the "(Article)" namespace through the dropdown menu if you would like. Hope this helps. If you need further clarification, feel free to leave a follow up question here. Mz7 (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, guys! Zupotachyon (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:prime and Draft:italics correction/calc

A while ago I was editing an article that used the notation $f' (x)$ a lot. If you can't see, there's supposed to be a Prime (symbol) to the right of that f indicating a derivative. I wanted some extra space for intelligibility, so inspired by {{'}}, created {{′}} to add the extra space.

~~Then User:Pppery nominated it for deletion, and there was a delay while we decided not to do that.~~

But during the discussion, User:Uanfala suggested a more ambitious design which I've made an initial implementation of. Before I start using it everywhere, though, I'd like to ask what people think about the design and its limitations. The helper {{Draft:italics correction/calc}} is designed to be useful more generally, such as in {{Italics correction}}.

I could add some support for HTML entities for Greek letters, but that would enlarge the {{#switch}} significantly, since I'd want to allow the α, α and α forms. Adding support for extracting a trailing HTML entity from arbitrary text automatically without being ridiculously inefficient might require a drop to Lua. (Or has someone else already created a template which solves that problem?)

~~Anyway, any opinions? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)~~

This page is intended for inexperienced users. If you already know how to create templates, it is probably the wrong place for your question, which is beyond the ability of some of us who try to help here. Moreover this page, perversely, and alone of all discussion pages in Wikipedia, has new threads at the top, so a request down here may go unread. I suggest you re-ask your question at the Help desk. Maproom (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom: Ah, thanks, I wondered if there was a more advanced forum. (It's not my first template, but the first that's complex enough I worry about software design issues.) I got the Help Desk mixed up with the Reference Desk, which is explicitly not about editing. As for top/bottom, I could swear I just clicked "Ask a Question" (&action=edit&section=new) and filled it in. But my memory is not clear on that point. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@71.41.210.146: Yes, indeed, the "Ask a Question" button follows the convention used elsewhere on WP talk-like pages and places the new section at the bottom. My recommendation is that experienced people looking for new items look both at the top and the bottom (or track the history), since this inconsistency does not seem to be going away any time soon. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I just tried the question box, 71.41.210.146 and jmcgnh, and it posted at the top, as it's supposed to. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, yes, I can see that it posted at the top for you. My test was a month or more ago, and it posted at the bottom. I'm mystified. What could account for the difference? —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure, jmcgnh. Maybe it could be dependent on browser, or perhaps the box's code was temporarily broken when you tried. Incidentally, the ping in your comment didn't trigger a notification for me, but I can't work out why. You didn't forget to sign the post, which is the usual reason. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Yours is the second complaint about not getting notifications. I'm beginning to think there are gremlins after me. Anyway, both of these issues are beyond my ability to solve, but I can try different platforms to see if I get different results. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

Hii,, I am just ask about blocked. How the sockpuppet investigations will occur. Bby89 (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bby89: Welcome to the Teahouse. Please read Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Editors are blocked to prevent disruption of the encyclopedia. Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry for our policy restricting the use of multiple accounts, and an overview of how this disruptive behavior is investigated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you thought you were about to be blocked given that no investigation was under way, Bby89, but having looked into the evidence, I have now requested one. Thanks for alerting us to your potential sockpuppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Article draft

I recently created a draft, Draft:Wishing Well Foundation USA. As this is my first attempt at creating an article, I was wondering if some of the more experienced Wikipedians here could provide some feedback on the draft before I submit it to be reviewed. (If you respond, please ping me; I do not have this page watchlisted.) Thank you. Joshualouie711 (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joshualouie711. It's good to seek feedback and but in this case there's really no need; that's exactly what the draft submission process is for. After you have submitted it, it will be added to the queue for a more experienced editor to review. Joe Roe (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Joshualouie711 has moved the draft to main space instead of waiting for a review, I have marked it for speedy deletion as an attack page, it might be possible to create a neutral article about Wishing Well Foundation USA but this isn't it. Theroadislong (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

What do you usually put on your user page?

I'm just curious which information would be useful to include. Thanks!Patrickh1992 (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Patrickh1992, and welcome to the Teahouse.

People put a wide variety of stuff on their user pages. You should just look at a bunch of them and see which things seem to you like they'd be useful. Userboxes seem to be particularly popular. Don't worry about it overmuch, though. User pages are not indexed and most of the time they will only be seen by users with whom you are interacting. There are a few limits on what you can put on your user page, so take a look at WP:User pages to make sure you're not doing something that may cause trouble. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Article Creation

I want to create an article of an upcoming artist,can I do that?Blxck stiffler (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

First, many new editors do not realize just how difficult the task is of creating a new article in Wikipedia, with its references. It is the hardest task in Wikipedia, but the one that many new editors think is the way that they need to help out. There are also many less difficult ways that new editors can help us with the five million articles that we already have, rather than with the ones that we don't have. Second, however, read Your first article. Also, read WP:Drafts and Articles for Creation. We strongly recommend creating the new article in draft space, where it will be reviewed by experienced editors, and it can be declined with feedback if it isn't up to standards, rather than deleted. Third, see Up-and-coming. Often new editors want to write an article about an "up-and-coming" artist, but in many cases such an artist has not yet received enough publicity to be notable for Wikipedia purposes. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Blxck stiffler: Short answer: Up-and-coming artists don't get articles on Wikipedia. They must have already 'arrived', and the evidence for that is the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the artist. See Wikipedia:Golden rule for a brief overview. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Create a new article

Hii, how many article we can do it in a day? Bby89 (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Bby89 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia has no set limits on how much you can edit – all constructive edits are heartily welcomed. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Although I would personally stress the value of quality over quantity, Bby89. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact, please stop creating articles such as Chong Yee Han until you have read and understood Wikipedia's copyright policy, Bby89. Once you've done that, I suggest creating any new articles as drafts for feedback, via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Bby89 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reviewer not clear

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.

This criticism is difficult to comprehend. There needs to be more detail about which references etc. are unreliablePogga D (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Pogga D, and welcome to the Teahouse!

I assume we're talking about the article Draft:Annette Elizabeth Clark. The review summary is somewhat boilerplate, but the reviewer's comments specifically call out that there are entire paragraphs with no references. So the summary needs to be interpreted as rejecting the article in its current state because it does not have enough references rather than a complaint that the references given are not reliable.

The next complaint will be that your references could be improved by using current WP referencing style as is explained in WP:CITE. I always prefer to see references that can be verified on-line, but it is certainly acceptable to use references to hardcopy sources that require a proper reference library to verify. But references must be verifiable and must be supplied for any substantive assertion you make in the article.

Please don't be discouraged. Creating a new article is a very difficult task for new editors to take on, in part because Wikipedia standards for articles have grown increasingly stringent over the years. For instance, see the essay Your First Article. I encourage you to keep working on it. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pogga D: Hello. One of your references says "From Evening Standard 30 April, year unknown". The lack of a year makes verification difficult, and verification is a core content policy. Another reference says "Testimonial letter from J. P. Ballard dated 28 July 1930". Unpublished personal correspondence is not a reliable source and cannot be verified. A Wikipedia article should summarize what published reliable sources say about the topic. Anything else is original research which is contrary to Wikipedia policy.

Your draft article includes unreferenced evaluative language such as "In her telling of Bible Stories she evokes the context for biblical events using a language which is timeless. The reader feels present while reading the story of Moses and Miriam and the Ark of Rushes." All such evaluative statements must be referenced to a reliable source, as this is the only way that a reader can verify that your assertions are true, and are not your own original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New contributor with simple questions about "moving" a page and adding an image

Greetings!

I am proposing to rename the title page to César Abadía-Barrero. I would like help on this. I studied the "moving" tutorial, but unfortunately am unable to locate the appropriate tools on my current page.

I e-mailed Dr. A recently. He gave me permission to use an image that was rejected after being uploaded, however.

Thanks million fold!

Respectfully,

asr05008 Asr05008 (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

For reference, the draft in question is User:Asr05008. —teb728 t c 06:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Asr05008. Quickly glancing at your draft, I see it is not ready for publication. The most obvious problem is a lack of references to independent reliable sources; you have given only three references and they are all to Abadía, and so are not independent. We are looking for what other people say about him. —teb728 t c 06:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Asr05008: Another problem with the draft is that the body of the draft contains inline external links: The only external links should be references. You should convert the external links to references or to internal links to Wikipedia articles or to plain text. —teb728 t c 06:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Asr05008: In my opinion, your draft article is not yet ready for the encyclopedia. I suggest that you spend more time working on it, and when you are sure that it is ready, submit it through the Articles for Creation process, for review by an experienced editor. Please read Your first article and follow its recommendations. Please also read our notability guideline for academics. Your draft has several external links in the body of the article, which is not allowed.

As for the photo, the subject cannot give permission to you to upload it on their behalf. The copyright holder must themself release the photo under an acceptable Creative Commons license, in writing. That person can open an account at Wikimedia Commons and use their upload wizard, which will ask all the appropriate legally required questions about the photo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

editing and copyright

How do I know if the information that I edit or enter is violating copyright?(Msb4 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Msb4, and welcome to the Teahouse. Almost invariably, you cannot enter text that has been written by someone other than you. Doing so is a copyright violation. Furthermore, text you find elsewhere is usually not written in a style suitable for an encyclopedia anyway, so you should not do that. There are some exceptions, however. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Msb4: You write should write original content for Wikipedia in your own words, summarizing but not copying what your reliable sources say. And you should provide references to those sources. Brief quotes enclosed in quotation marks are acceptable, but only if referenced to the original source. Writing this way will prevent copyright problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.png

I uploaded the latest version of the SVG version to the PNG version. I want to reduce the file size. GXXF T • C 18:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You can do that by going to a file compressing website.

Type in Google searchbox "file compresser". RainPearl233 (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

renaming a UBX page

Hi,

I just finished making a userbox (UBX), and I decided to rename it so it is easier to find in the gallery.

However, instead of using the "move" function, I made another page with the new name and then deleted the contents of the old one.

Is this the correct way to handle this? If not, how can I fix this? Relevant pages: Current/good page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Myoglobin/Userboxes/Habitica Old/bad page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Myoglobin/Userboxes/Habitician

Thanks! Myoglobin (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and requested a history merge for the pages, please remember though next time to use the Move feature! Thanks! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Do I need to do anything right now to effect the history merge? Also, for next time, how exactly does the Move feature work? Myoglobin (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this just got fixed! One more question: is it ever appropriate to link to a UBX in the "See Also" section of an article? Myoglobin (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no reason why an article should ever contain a wikilink to anything outside of mainspace - except for maintenance tags of course. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a page for instructions on how to use that function, Myoglobin. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

How can you join a WikiProject?

Hi. I'm a bit new here. But how can you join a WikiProject? RainPearl233 (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, RainPearl233, welcome to the Teahouse.

Visit the WikiProject's project page and look for a section about participants. Often you join by simply editing the participants list page and adding your name. Usually there will be adequate instructions there for how to join. Sometimes you can show your allegiance to a project by displaying a userbox on your user page.

Adding the project's Talk page to your Watchlist may help keep you aware of project goings on. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @RainPearl233:. In addition to jmcgnh's response, if you want to see a list of what WikiProjects are available, check out Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

When will a wiki page appear in google search?

Hello I just had an article I wrote pass through a proposed delete. How long until the article is available and will appear on a google search? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Hillmann DanHamilton1998 (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello DanHamilton1998, and Welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, Google search results are out of our control. It appears that Google knows the page exists, but doesn't rank it very highly and hasn't crawled it recently. It could take any amount of time before the page appears as you would expect. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 12:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@DanHamilton1998 and AntiCompositeNumber: No, Google had only indexed a discussion about the article. The article still had noindex as a new article to prevent search engine indexing before new articles are reviewed (see Wikipedia:New pages patrol). This is a specific software action I have now done [1] so noindex has been removed. It varies how long it takes Google to index an article after they are allowed to. It's problematic that articles are not automatically reviewed when they pass a discussion like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hillmann. It's a recent feature to noindex new articles and our processes and editors haven't caught up. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Google indexed the article while I wrote the above! I have heard they watch our logs to quickly index pages but the result varies. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Hmm. I was sure I saw the green checkmark in Page Curation when I checked yeaterday...Oh well. It still isn't ranked highly in search, at least on my end. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 13:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both! DanHamilton1998 (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

DanHamilton1998: not that Google will care – but I encourage you to improve the referencing of Bill Hillmann. What there is still doesn't really do enough to establish notability. There's plenty of good sources, I can see them in the "Further reading" section, but more of them need citing. Maproom (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I'm trying to improve cites editors seem to be helping. The page has risen considerably to number 4 on google. When will google place it at the top right side of the page? Is there something I can do to request that? Thanks! DanHamilton1998 (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Remember that the Google results you receive partly depend on your own browsing and search history, DanHamilton1998. The article is on the second page of results for me. To repeat a point made above, we have no control or influence over Google search results. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

and neither should we care. Theroadislong (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Regarding Conflict of Interest, Wikipedia says to post suggestions to the Talk forum of the page. How timely will responses be made? I'm worried that I'll make a suggestion, and weeks will go by without a response. Thanks. cg.wikawikawow Cg.wikawikawow (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There can be no guarantee of speed but if you do the following I think you will maximize the likelihood of a quicker response. At the talk page add an explanatory header for your post. Post below it this template {{Edit request}}. Below that type out an organized post explaining exactly what existing language you would like changed, and the manner of change, or what addition to the page you are requesting and exactly where it should go. Because you are new, I wouldn't expect you to have a lot of experience with wikimarkup, but the requested change can be made easier by doing something like this (see in edit mode for how it was done):

Please replace

Old Sentence Text

with

New Sentence Text

Or: "I would like to add the following text to the third sentence in section Y (additions in green):

Original sentence here is my suggested addition balance of existing sentence.

Regardless of your suggestions, almost any change that is not a grammar/syntax change for polishing purposes, is far, far more likely to be accepted if it is 1) purely factual; 2) contains no promotional sounding language; and 3) cites to a reliable, secondary source, entirely unconnected with the topic, that is well formatted and provides transparent attribution to the source. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Fuhgettaboutit. I'll be sure to follow your advice.Cg.wikawikawow (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)