Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 194

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.

Archive 190

←

Archive 192

→

I still don't know how to create a new entry when there is a name conflict

I think I start a page under start a new page, but I still don't how one goes to the first page in which there is a name conflict. If there is a page on apples for example and one for apple computer, how to have two pages named the same, and I what can be done about that. I could hypothetically try to do and have it fail if no one is going to answer me, and I have to learn by trail and error.Apriv40dj (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Apriv40dj: Hey Apriv40dj. It would help greatly if you gave us the specifics, because what to do depend on various considerations, such as how many confusing or identically named topics there are, whether one of them is the "primary topic" and so on. In general though, if there is an existing title by the same name, another can be created at a parenthetically disambiguated name (though in some instances natural disambiguation can be used [and more rarely comma-separated disambiguation]). For example, If there is already an article at Foo, you might create another article at Foo (disambiguator). But in some cases, the original Foo should be also moved to a disambiguated name, and the original foo should become a disambiguation page. Again, it really does depend. Can you tell us what this is about? Meanwhile, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Article titles and especially its subsection at WP:PRECISION, and Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

when I did that I ended up starting a debate on the merit of my selection, and did not get any answers to the question. I think the problem was confusing people by being too specific. I am thinking like "other people named this name," I think I have seen that before. I am trying to collect more data and sources. I was just wanting to know on general principles. Hopefully, I will save that info to notes in case the situation comes up in the future. Apriv40dj (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Apriv40dj: Well in the absence of specifics, I can think of nothing that I could do but point you to the relevant policies and guidelines that would need to be interpreted in order to make a decision as to a proper title when there is a name conflict. After all, the very purpose of those pages on article titles and disambiguation is to address those issue globally – to provide the "general principles" you seek – so I would just be repeating what those pages already say, but necessarily with less detail.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I see the confusion is coming from that article because disambiguation only refers to things like Danzig, I know this guy, the heavy metal guy, I am fan, but anyway, when two people have the same name it seems the normal way is to say, "other people the name Joe Blow" for example and not create a disambiguation page. Anyway I did look at the page, but I need to find a different article that would address people of the same name. Apriv40dj (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Apriv40dj: But that's exactly what these pages address in great detail. Two articles on two individuals named Joe Blow, one an architect, one a physicist.

If neither Joe Blow is vastly more commonly searched for, then the Joe Blows should be at the names Joe Blow (architect) and Joe Blow (physicist) and Joe Blow alone should lead to a disambiguation page. (See WP:TWO DABS.)

However, if one of them can be naturally disambiguated because their middle initial is (or also is) their common name, then we can dispense with the parenthetical disambiguators and take care of disambiguation with just hatnotes.

On the other hand, if Joe Blow the physicist is vastly more commonly searched for, then his article should be at Joe Blow alone (as the primary topic), the other should be at Joe Blow (architect), there should be no disambiguation page and there should be a hatnote at Joe Blow pointing to the architect.

But if there are four Joe Blows and one is the primary topic then we can't take care of that through a hatnote, so the disambiguation page is created at Joe Blow (disambiguation), the primary topic Joe Blow remains at the primary title, the others get parenthetical disambiguators (e.g., (architect)), and we put a hatnote on the primary article pointing to the disambiguation page.

And so on. You have to study these pages for what they mean. I can point you to the various subsections of Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Article titles that result in each of these scenarios, but you have to read these policies globally to understand why (it may very well sound like gibberish until you do so, because this all may only makes sense once you've been immersed in it). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that explains it. I have a learning disability and it takes me a long time to learn new things. There is Joe Negri Jazz Musician and if I add Joe Negri I use a hatnote. I am still trying to collect more sources for Joe Negri of the Restaurant. So, in the future people come along named Joe Negri it becomes a disambitious page? But, in the case of just two people it becomes a hatnote? I think I have to the concept now. I hope I am understanding this correctly? Apriv40dj (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC) I guess I could also see a debate could occur between the two camps of people if one group thinks that their Joe Blow is the most important one, so what to do it the case of equally important people? If it was debatable which was most important or if there is a disagreement between the question of which individual should receive top billing then what? I am just trying to cover every possibility for future reference. Apriv40dj (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Apriv40dj: It's not necessarily a matter of "importance", but rather of what our readers are most likely to be searching for when they enter a title, though the correspondence is high. Anyway, yes, the jazz musician Joe Negri would appear, based on some searches I just performed, to be significantly more likely to be searched for so if there was just these two Joe Negris, the Jazz musician's article should likely remain at Joe Negri, the article about the restaurateur would be at a disambiguated title, maybe Joe Negri (restaurateur), there would be no disambiguation page, and at the top of the jazz musician's article we would place a hatnote – probably something like:

{{this|the jazz musician|the restaurant owner|Joe Negri (restaurateur)}} or

{{for|the restaurant owner|Joe Negri (restaurateur)}}

which would format respectively as

(except that instead of "page" they would say "article"; the hatnote template has a namespace detect which converts "article" to "page" when displayed here). And yes, if it was decided neither was primary, or there was a third, a disambiguation page would be created. And if you wanted to change the page titles and thought there would be controversy or wanted to determine consensus, you could open up a requested moves debate. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Uploading film posters

Hi, I'd like to know how to upload film posters, the kind of license, etc. It's for The Immigrant (2013 film). Thanks! I'm not there. Message me! 01:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. The movie poster is almost certainly copyrighted, but it can be uploaded to Wikipedia so long as it follows the policy on non-free content. A low-resolution version of a movie poster will likely meet the requirements. The file upload wizard will guide you through this. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 01:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Katastasi: (e/c) Hey Katastasi. Since this would have to be a claim under fair use, this would have to be uploaded locally (to Wikipedia) rather than to the Wikimedia Commons (which is only for free images). The image would require a license and a fair use rationale, which you can provide through templates; such as {{Non-free poster}} and {{Non-free use rationale}}. I recommend the following procedure:

Download the film poster to your computer. Make sure either the file you download is small, or you reduce its size. This is to comply with the non-free content policy's minimal use requirement. A proper size will typically be in the range of 250 to 350 × 350 to 450 – there is no exact dimensions guide. (If you need help with size reduction, tell us in a follow-up post.)
Go to Special:Upload. Note that if you click on "upload file" from the interface you will be taken to a file upload wizard. This is good for some things but you can dispense with it here.
Click browse and choose the file from your computer.
Place there the license and the fair use rationale template. I recommend following the form here
Since you are copying and pasting from the form above (and tailoring for the specific of your upload of course) which already provides the license directly, do not choose any from the dropdown menu you will see in the upload interface.
Make sure the box for "Watch this file" is ticked and then click Upload file.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds magazine archive?

Is there a way to access archived articles from Sounds magazine, from the late 70's? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Have a great day.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@CaesarsPalaceDude: Hey CaesarsPalaceDude. I have just looked and I have not found that the archives are available online. A library may be the only option. But you might try placing a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request (WP:RX), a forum where users with access to library resources, such as various databases that are subscription or pay only and so on, provide assistance. Be specific in your request as to what article(s) you are looking to gain access to. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Today's DYK

The article Forest cobra is appearing in the DYK section right now. Its talk page seems messed up with two GA templates and the article history outdated. Can someone take a look and fix it? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 05:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sriram. The article failed a Good Article review in January, but later went through a second review, which it passed a few days ago. Therefore, both templates should be on the talk page. What problems do you see with the article history? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Really? By the way, since the article is a GA now, shouldn't there be another entry in the article history with the result 'listed'? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 06:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sriram:

Article history fixed. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 02:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing help.

Hello there, I am still confused about the article I want to help edit. First, I try to help fix the references, but notice that during some of the previous edits there was a reference that has been included twice. I tried to delete the extra one, but noticed on the edits that I received a -200. Someone undid my edit and got a +200. May I ask what's up with that? What edits are good enough for a positive number?

Also, after I tried fixing the references, the article still had that it needed help with citations, since there was an "unclear citation style".

Any advice? Thank you! Castil18 (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. The + and - numbers you see are not a rating of how "good" or "bad" an edit is. They just show how much text was added or removed. In this case, your edit removed 205 characters. The "unclear citation style" means that the references are not formatted consistently. If you want to help improve this, you can go to the introduction to referencing to learn how. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 02:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Castil18: (e/c) Hey Castil18. The numbers you are referring to are not any sort of rating. They're the number of bytes you changed in each edit made (which corresponds generally to the number of characters you added or removed); (+30) means you added 30 bytes and (-30) means you removed 30 bytes. For more, see Help:User contributions. Regarding the references, what the article needs is inline citations to reliable sources (a number of the general references currently in the article are not at all reliable secondary independent sources, e.g. answers.com is about as far from a reliable source as can be, being anonymous, user generated content). A good place to start is Help:Referencing for beginners. By the way, as a general rule if you make a good edit but do not leave an edit summary explaining your edit, you are much more likely to be reverted by someone else if it's not sparklingly clear that your edit was an improvement. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you so much for the help!Castil18 (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you have this?

I ASKED THE QUESTION ( wHY DON'T YOU HAVE THIS) AND I HAVE IT? It was put out by the Air Force in July 1958 and it's called THE DIRECTORY OF AIR FORCE FILMS. AFM-95-8. CLEARED FOR TELEVISION AND PUBLIC EXHIBITION. IT WAS PUT OUT IN 1 JULY 1958. IT HAS 84 PAGES AND CAN COME IN HANDY IF A NON AMERICAN GOT A HOLD OF IT. BUT ALL THE MATERIAL IN IT IS OUT DATED AND THE AIRCRAFT ARE NO LONGER FLYING. B-36, B-49, FORRESTAL, DECOMMISSIONED,AIR FORCE DIGEST FILMS FOR SCHOOLS AND ENTERTANMENT AT BIRTHDAY PARTIES. NOW I KNOW YOU WILL LOOK IT UP SO YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE AIR FORCE DEPARTMENT AT THE COMMANDER AT THE 1356TH FILM LIBRARY FLIGHT, 8900 SOUTH BROADWAY, ST LOUIS 23, MISSOURI. HOPE THIS WILL HELP. MY DAD WAS INCHARGE OF HISTORICAL FACTS ABOUT THE MILITARY. THIS DIRECTORY CONTAINS NO COPYWRIGHT MATERIAL. THESE FILMS SHOW THE PUBLIC AND OTHER PEOPLE . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelman67 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lionelman67, and thanks for dropping by here at the teahouse. The Worldcat catalog know of five copies in US libraries outside of the Air Force. Not sure if that answers your question, though. As an aside, your CAPS LOCK key was turned on when you wrote the above. The convention here is that ALL CAPS is interpreted as SHOUTING, which we try to avoid. Hope that helps! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguate a soundtrack single

There is this one single – Baby Doll which is from a soundtrack. There is already an article disambiguated with (song). But how to disambiguate this one from that? Should I use the composers name, eg: (Meet Bros Anjjan song) or singers? – Soham (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. If it is a song from a soundtrack, it may be better to use the name of the work from which it came, since Wikipedia prefers common names for article titles. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Anon126, I don't understand, should it be Baby Doll (Ragini MMS 2 song) or Baby Doll (Meet Bros Anjjan song)? – Soham (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Soham: When you say "soundtrack" I assume that this the music from a film or other dramatic work, in which case I might recommend that you use the name of the film/work, if the song is more associated with that than the singer or composer. Otherwise, I'd recommend the singer because that's usually what it is for other songs. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 05:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is from a film, Ragini MMS 2 and in most reliable sources it is mentioned like Baby Doll from Ragini MMS 2.... Thanks. – Soham (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to create a new section into each episode of The Office(U.S. Edition).

I would like to create a new section into each episode of The Office(U.S. Edition). The section would be called Best Lines of Episode. I understand this is a purely subjective subject, but I really like this show and am watching the entire series again and want to contribute to the Wikipedia pages associated with the program. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.Nickofbeer (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't do this. --Onorem (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nickofbeer, since it is purely subjective it would breach WP:NPOV. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It would also violate our restriction against original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nickofbeer: You could see what you can add on Wikipedia's sibling Wikiquote (page for The Office (U.S.). Anon126 (talk - contribs) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Proper way to handle annoyance?

Hi, I've twice randomly encountered User:Niemti, the latest time, just now, on Badaber Uprising. It was on the list to copy edit. I did what I thought was a credible copyedit and overnight, Niemti systematically reverted everything (again). I don't have enough interest or expertise in the topic to really be seriously bothered but when you put a lot of work in, it's disappointing to have it wasted. [[1]] is the comment from and conversation I had with Niemti the first time around. Is there something I can do (other than putting a warning on the article talk page)? Am I missing something about what I am doing in the copy editing that I need to fix? I put the copy edit tag back on Badaber Uprising but Niemti has reverted that too. I know I sound like a bear with a sore tooth but I am honestly just a wee bit annoyed. Off to steep my orange pekoe, kind regards, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy your tea and relax, Myrtlegroggins. The other editor you mentioned recently came off a two week block and has been blocked today for an additional six weeks, as a result of the editor's conduct in another dispute. This seems to be an editor who irritates far more people than just you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool bananas, got it. Thanks ++ Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Help a new editor?

I've been posting in a few areas, but I know that this will be a good place to ask as well. I've come across a new user that's editing on behalf of their university as part of a project. The user in question is User:BrendonPorter and his project/article topic is "Gender Inequality of Education in Saudi Arabia". Can anyone help him with some basic mentoring type stuff? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to mentor anyone right now, but just to let you know, this whole teahouse thing is upside down, so for more attention, please post at the TOP of the page! I assume it's some sort of joke that the tea is spiked with something and thus everyone sees things upside down. Not a particularly funny joke, but that's just how it is for now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, I'll make an offer to help on their talk page. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Review of my work

Hi everyone! I have made some changes on the page "Expectancy violations theory", on the "Criticism of the theory" section. I have also added a representative diagram through Wikimedia Commons. Could I get any feedback for my work? Thank you! Irina Predescu (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A Teahouse is not to advertise but to ask questions. If you continue to do this, it may be called vandalism as the Teahouse do not need any advertising from other users. I hope you understand. Cheers! --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 07:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

boxes

how to put boxes ? Lam Zhao Wei (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lam Zhao Wei: I'm afraid this is too general a question for an easy answer. Please be more specific? Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Depends on what you want. If you're talking about Infoboxes, you can use a template such as in here (example): Template:Infobox person. If you want an image box, with a description, you can simply do it like this: [[File:???|thumb|right|???.]] I'm not there. Message me! 01:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Example of an infobox, which provides short bits of information about a subject.

@Katastasi: I've fixed your example by adding <nowiki>...</nowiki>.

@Lam Zhao Wei: To add the boxes with short information, see the infoxbox help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon126 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 23 March 2014‎ (UTC)

@Lam Zhao Wei: Welcome to the Teahouse, Lam Zhao Wei. "Boxes" is too general, because it could be an infobox, a userbox, a thumbnail or a taxobox. Please clarify so we can help you. Cheers! --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 07:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Katastasi and Timtrent: Please put the {{Teahouse talkback}} on talk pages so that they can look back here. --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 07:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: It's kind of you to suggest that, but the suggestion is a tautology. We have that little red notifications thing at the head of every page, which is why I use {{ping}} Fiddle Faddle 09:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Okay, fine. You do not actually need to talkback the person if you use ping, though. LOL. Cheers! --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 09:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Using press releases for a company article

Hi! I know Wikipedia's guidelines imply that we should avoid using press releases as references. To what extent is it okay to use them? Some things, such as accurate and specific dates are found most easily through press releases. Is that okay? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Press releases may mean newspapers and books. Please specify. --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 07:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops; sorry about that. Let me elaborate: "Press releases" as in those short paragraphs companies themselves write and publish on their websites in a formal manner. Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the normal meaning of Press release does not refer to newspapers or books, but rather to a statement issued by an organization for possible use by the news media. The relevant guideline can be found at WP:SELFSOURCE, Bananasoldier. Press releases are not independent sources and can't be used for the purpose of establishing notability of a topic. Once notability has been established, though, they can be used for basic factual information about the issuing entity. For example, if XYZ Corporation issues a press release saying that John Jones has retired as CEO, and Mary Smith has been selected as the new CEO, it is acceptable to add that management change to the article. But if the press release goes on to say that XYZ Corporation is the world's leading innovator of widget technology, that claim should not be added to the article based on that press release. You need to use editorial judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

One must also be aware that a normally reliable source regurgitating a press release verbatim does not impart credibility to it. News aggregators are not always selective in their treatment of so called news. WP:BOMBARD also applies where one may not use the same material in many different sources to allege notability. Sourcing is a tricky area, and is often a matter of policy plus opinion. The best answer is that, over time, one gets used to what is a useful reference and what is not. Fiddle Faddle 13:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Can a host ask a question here?

Can a host ask a question here? I think so, 'cause I'm doing it right now. --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 09:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. --LukeSurl^{t c} 11:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we've answered that question fairly comprehensively - do you have another? ;-) - Arjayay (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle is where?

I cannot find Twinkle in my Gadgets list...what's up with this? I'd love to use it! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 23:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiphradicusEpicus (talk • contribs)

It should be in the "Browsing" section, but if not, you can try adding importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js'); to your common.js user script. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 01:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response.Nickofbeer (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please help me with correcting the errors on my page

Hello. I have recently created the page: European Centre for Information Policy and Security and I have tried everything I can do to make the corrections.

European Centre for Information Policy and Security

I have even used other pages such as Green Peace, George Washington, etc. as examples, but I am still receiving the following error pages. Can you please help me correct these, or at least tell me where the errors are and how I can correct them, please. The following are the error notes, I have on my page.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (March 2014)

Question book-new.svg

This article relies on references to primary sources. (March 2014)

Pellisor (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In each of those error messages, at least one word is in blue. This is to indicate that it is a wikilink to a page where specific advice on that aspect is available. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Pellisor. One of those messages says that the article relies on references to primary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on independent, secondary sources. When I look at the list of references, I see mostly primary sources. The secondary sources seem to be passing mentions, rather than significant coverage. That raises the question as to whether or not this organization is notable by Wikipedia's standards. I am not saying it isn't as I haven't searched for coverage in secondary sources. But it is up to you to demonstrate that notability, and I don't think you have yet done so. The message also says to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. I see no such discussion. The message in question was added by Sarahj2107. You could discuss the matter on that editor's talk page, but you have not yet done so. So please address that issue. In the interim, David Biddulph has removed the tag about external links. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article I see that since the tags were added you have addressed the external link problem. Having done that you could have removed the maintenance tag; I have done that for you. It looks as if most of the references are still to primary sources, so it would be good if you find more sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all the help. Best, PEllisor Pellisor (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Offer of help

Some time ago, I was sent an offer by Libby norman to help with referencing my proposed entry on Denes Agay. I don't quite understand the Wikipedia communications maze and I think this is the right place she mentioned. I have received other messages saying it would be deleted and I managed to revive it, but I don't quite know how to edit it (I tried a clumsy effort).

I'm sorry I took so long but until I got something in my email I didn't realize what was going on.

Would Libby or anyone be willing to help?

CecilieauxCecilieaux (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Cecilieaux: It looks as though the article has been restored as Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Denes_Agay, so now it can be worked on. Mr Agay appears to be notable and you have a reference, so that's a great start. The submission was declined, though, because there are not enough references in reliable sources. So there is some work needed. You need to try to make every fact a cited fact, or to remove the facts until you can find citations. I often refer new editors to User:Timtrent/A good article where there is a reasonable guide to creating an article that will be acceptable to WIkipedia. It requires a bit of work on your part to read and understand, and the article you are creating looks a great place to learn and polish your skills. Come back here if there is any more information you need. I'm confident you can achieve the acceptance of this article with just a final push. Fiddle Faddle 16:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Query about this edit

Hi, as part of a project for my University, which can be found here

The section assumed that this theory was widely accepted by scholars, so I changed it to say "according to Charles Berger" who originally came up with the theory, is this an appropriate edit?

I couldn't find the original paper on Uncertainty Reduction theory by Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese, and therefore must have assumed the "Interactive strategies" section was written from the authors opinion and not by accepted Scholars.

Here is a link to my Sandbox with the suggested edits on.

Dwatson251 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Dwatson251, and welcome to the teahouse! I don't have a lot of context to go on here—what the article you wanted to work on? In general if you're going to be attributing ideas to a person you should have a reliable source (in the wikipedia sense, see WP:RS for details) to back that up. If you need help tracking down a particular paper, the wikipedia resource exchange is a great place to ask: head on over to WP:RX. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

References to secondary sources

Hello again. I have created the web page about European Centre on Information Policy and Security: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Centre_for_Information_Policy_and_Security and I have references to at least two secondary sources, news articles on the two different website. The other two references may be considered as primary sources, as that is where I got the information about ECIPS's president and registration number. Please let me know what else needs to be done to remove the error note of: This article relies on references to primary sources. Please add references to secondary or tertiary sources. (March 2014)?

Thank you Pellisor (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Pellisor: it looks to me as if you have solved that issue, so I have removed the tag. You may do these things yourself, too. I have, however, tagged the article to have the references improved. You need to make sure that every fact is a cited fact. It's the stuff of which excellence is made. You have made a great start. You might decide now to father the article rather than mother it. It's in the wild and others can and will improve it. Or you may want to keep working on it, a thing you are welcome to do. In the end, though, we have to recognise that we have other articles to create and edit, and those we have already handled can take care of themselves. Fiddle Faddle 17:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing error tags

Hi. I have been told by a couple of people on this page that I may remove the error tags myself, after making the corrections. I am not sure how to do that. Please help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Centre_for_Information_Policy_and_Security Thank you Pellisor (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You successfully removed the refimprove tag after your post above by taking out {{refimprove|date=March 2014}}. On the off chance you are still seeing it then you are viewing a cached version of the page (see WP:BYPASS for a fix). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates: 45°00′N 122°00′W

Some articles has it. Need to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowForester (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The co-ordinates are of a piece of forest near Austin Hot Springs in Clackamas County, Oregon, but I'm not sure what you are asking. - Arjayay (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Earth's date on the verge of violating NPOV?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Editors wishing to continue the discussion on the merits of creationism are invited to resume their conversation off-wiki at talk.origins. Questions as to how WP:NPOV should be applied to other articles should be taken up in a separate thread. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I was just wondering if we need to be looking at changing some information on Earth's page in the near future. See, the scientific school of thought regarding the date of the Earth's formation is based largely upon Carbon-dating...a system that is now known to be quite unreliable by much of the scientific community of today. Please also note that I am IN NO WAY taking a personal stance in this issue at this time (so I will not violate NPOV myself)! I am referring to the fact that in the modern world many scientists--I am not saying that they are religious or irreligious either--have completely rejected the Theory of Evolution due to scientific logic. Again, I cannot stress how important it is that we maintain a NPOV on a subject as touchy as this--right now, I personally find the idea of the exact date of Earth's formation to be not factually presented anywhere scientifically and so therefore it would make much more sense...and appease a majority of people...to restate the current article to read something alone the lines of, "It is believed by {many, some, a few, a majority of} scientists that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old; however, due to the research of {many, a large number of} other scientists, this idea is not accepted as fact but is the most widely accepted theory" This way we do not violate NPOV! LiphradicusEpicus (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating is used to determine the age of organic materials, and can determine age up to about 60,000 years. It is not used to determine the age of the Earth. You might like to read (if you haven't already done so) our article on the Age of the Earth, which describes the techniques used to determine that value, which I don't believe are the subject of any particular controversy. Perhaps you were confusing carbon dating with Radiometric dating? Rojomoke (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, thank you for that link Rojomoke; it is quite helpful. The problem I have with this is that there is also the Tired Light theory to consider nowadays with more and more scientists supporting it. Would it not be more appropriate to specifically state that these are all theories regarding Earth's formation date?

And yes, it does seem that I confused Radiocarbon dating with Radiometric dating! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე (talk to me) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Tired Light is an obsolete scientific theory? Theroadislong (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, it's quite simple, really: if you can find reliable scientific sources that indicate there is some disagreement about the age of the Earth, then you can add that there is disagreement to the article. If you can find reliable scientific sources that show that other ideas about the age of the Earth have significant support among the relevant experts in the field, then you can add those other ideas to the article, with coverage in proportion to the degree of support. Many people misunderstand the idea of NPOV to be "everyone gets their say", but that's not how it works at Wikipedia: at Wikipedia, and particularly in scientific articles like Age of the Earth, ideas, facts, and theories are covered in proportion to their degree of support among the relevant academic fields, which also means that ideas and theories that do not have significant support do not get covered or mentioned significantly in their encyclopedia articles, either. For example, the claim that many scientists have rejected evolutionary theory on scientific grounds is something that must be backed by reliable academic/scientific publications that attest to this, were it to go into an article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I was merely using Tired Light as an example...not listing it as something I purport. This article right here I find interesting: http://qedradiation.scienceblog.com/11/redshift-by-cosmic-dust-trumps-hubble-and-tired-light-theories/ ; To you, Writ Keeper, I understand your point completely. Also note that the phrase you quoted from me was something I found out from personal knowledge and experience would not put into an article without appropriate source-backing. As for the NPOV, from what I've seen there seems to be a large number of people on sides of the fence other than the typical modern school-taught science. Just out of curiosity, does Wikipedia have any kind of "ratio" when it comes to science as to when other theories should be listed/supported? Allow me to explain via example...in a 1|4 ratio requirement here, if 25% of {scientists, researchers} think one way and 75% of them think another, this requirement would allow for both sides to have their opinions/theories listed. Of course, if there is a ratio, I am sure it is much closer to 1|2! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე (talk to me) 22:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, LiphradicusEpicus. There is no ratio. We simply reflect what is in reliable, secondary sources (note I'm using those words as terms of art in the narrow, wikipedia sense). If the age of the earth undergoes any significant revision, there will be plenty of coverage in newspapers and magazines (and several Nobel prizes awarded as well). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright! Thank you for that information Cart.! Much appreciated. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 23:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiphradicusEpicus (talk • contribs)

@LiphradicusEpicus: Hey LiphradicusEpicus, Please understand one thing about NPOV: It is not giving all views about a subject, but requires us to represent:

"...all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views... Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic."

It is absolutely untrue that there is any view by more than a rounding error of actual scientists that the earth is anything but billions of years old (though there may be debate about the exact age), and the same is true of the view of evolution (see e.g. Project Steve), which is just about the most weighty, accepted view in all of science, opposed only generally by trotting out idealogues who got their degrees from cracker jack boxes, but fostered by the alarming spread over the past twenty years of the yellow journalism that passes for news, where every time there is a legitimate scientist describing evolution, they think journalistic even handedness requires presenting an opposing viewpoint regardless of weight (and then you have the pure bias of non-news, inculcating organizations like Fox).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

At this point we must agree to disagree, as there are thousands of reliable sources of scientists rejecting evolution as a legitimate theory. Let me give you a quick number to wrap your brain around: the probability of evolution being the source of the universe's creation is quite literally less than the probability of setting off a nuclear bomb in a 747 factory and the end result being a fully completed, functioning 747 jet airplane. However, due to the fact that Wikipedia is a source to many, many different beliefs, each with their own "proof" of backing it would be absurd to try to force someone to believe any one way. On a different note, Fuhghettaboutit, I would like to thank you for your information (quote) regarding NPOV and would appreciate it if you would share your insights on the Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation page (if you look at the talk page where it talks about using the term "annexation" and the ensuing arguments you will fully understand)! Again thank you! :) მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 20:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is probably not the place for it, but I feel the need to point out that no-one, as far as I know, has suggested that evolution is "the source of the universe's creation". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent response to NY times coverage of Wikipedia’s editors skew

Regarding: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/the-geography-of-fame.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Dear Fellow editors:

I am neither male nor have I a written a page about a male. However, I think an intelligent response to the report on the American, white-male predominance in Wikipedia would be a good thing for many reasons.

Firstly, we have all agree to be neutral in our content. Now would be a great time to talk about that, since non-editors may not be aware of that editorial pillar's importance at Wikipedia.

Secondly, we editors do not generate all of the content by any stretch of the imagination. The world generates the content. The article is very hazy about that point, to the extent of making it seem as though Editors as a collective can dictate who is world is worth noting. Quote Mr. Stephens-Davidowitz, the article's author, "With a little coding, I had a data set of more than 150,000 Americans deemed by Wikipedia’s editors to be notable." A single editor may deem who is not-notable, but that effect would be fleeting and highly temporary. If someone is truly notable, one editor de-commissioning that notable person's page would have no functional effect. That person's notability would rapidly result in a new page being generated, if that person was notable to the portion of the population of the world that generates wikipedia page.

This brings us to the third great reason to respond to this article in the civil, intelligent and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia: that our users make Wikipedia what it is and what it will become. If there is an article skew-and I don't doubt that there is-it is a reflection of user skew. In particular, the users who are invested enough to add to the body of the project. Who are these users? They are people with access to time and technology, who are not put off by a semi-technical graphical interface. It is highly likely that if we were to survey wikipedia users about their race, gender, education and socioeconomic status, we would find that the non-contributing user-base follows the standard distribution, while the contributing user-base is a single-tailed distribution skewed by an abundance of education and social advantage. Now is a great time to reach out to people who don't fit that mold. It would benefit us, them and the entire world of Wikipedia users.

I would be happy to help with the response to the article, which in fact requests a response. "This evidence is very preliminary. It is meant to start a conversation rather than offer definitive answers". On the internal side, I am thinking about ways to reach out to more people at every level in a more effective way. The article's research, and our own knowledge about who is editing Wikipedia, help us understand that too many people are being left behind, to the detriment of the whole. Quoth the article, and I think it's true: "Yet the goal of a great society is not only to leave fewer people behind; it is to help some really stand out. Here, too, we have a lot to learn."

So here, finally, are my questions: What are we going to say, and what are we going to do?

Thank you for your consideration. I am not a long-time editor, but I am a very long-time believer in this project. I would like to see this turn into a useful and productive global discussion on how more involvement with Wikipedia leads to a more equitable and just society, both online and off-line in real space and time.

Sincerely, Jedisg Jedisg (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jedisg, and welcome to the teahouse. I found the article to be fascinating, and based on what you've written above I think you've misread both the author's intent and conclusions. I don't see any need for a response. I'd be happy to discuss this with you further on your talk page, but I don't believe further discussion on a board intended for new editors would be appropriate. Best, Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello: I'm not sure why this public venue isn't the appropriate one, but I take your word as sufficient. I'm more than happy to continue the discussion, but would prefer to do so where others can join in. Where would be the best location please? Cheers. Jedisg (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Jedisg

Jedisg, the purpose of this board is to help new users find their way around the editing process. The Village Pump-Misc. board would be a more appropriate venue. I'd recommend, though, that you first ask an experienced editor you trust if your concerns are well-founded. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Noting when information is current

Hi, I'm new to this so please excuse if this is a stupid question. Sometimes important information will be expected to change in time, and it would help the reader to know when the statement in WP was current.

For example, I was updating the entry for my suburb, where a new railway line is under construction. The planned completion date is 2017, which seems pertinent. But tomorrow, that plan may change. So is it best to:

Omit that information;
State it without mentioning when it was current;
Use wording like "as of March 2014, the planned completion date is 2017".

Can anybody offer thoughts on which approach is preferred? Gronk Oz (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If you include an inline reference at the end, then it would be fine to simply state "...planned for completion in 2017". Readers understand that plans may change, and if they want details, they can check the source. 71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, follow your second point whenever possible. "Current" ever so soon isn't - and the same applies to "recent" - I have seen article where items from 2007 are labeled as current or recent so it is best to skip those terms whenever possible. MarnetteD | Talk 01:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: In general, there is no such thing as a stupid question. Agreeing with those above, see also WP:EPHEMERAL, which addresses this issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the generous help everybody!

I am particularly keen to read through the Ephemeral guidelines and learn to use those templates: they are exactly what I was looking for to address this situation. Gronk Oz (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You might also be interested in 'Template: Update after' which I couldn't find at the Ephemeral link. It is invisible until a specified date; after which a tag appears thus:^{[dated info]} –And a hidden category is generated for maintenance. ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a very neat template!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing pictures

How do I move pictures to different locations on a page. No matter where I paste the file name it always winds up on the right hand side of the page. Mmcard59 (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to the Tea House. I think I can help with this one. If I use the code "File:Miniature Poodle stacked.jpg|thumb|Miniature Poodle stacked" inside the double square brackets, the picture will end up in some default place (goodness only knows). But, if I go "File:Miniature Poodle stacked.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Miniature Poodle stacked" inside the double square brackets I am saying I want it to go to the left and I want the size to be 200px. Hope this helps, otherwise our kind teahouse host will be along in just a minute. Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly: right is the default, left must be designated. Mostly we stick to either but you can read about more options at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax and Help:Table.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the request file upload?

Hello, I'm putting together a living person article (with the actual person since they need help). They are an author and we are trying to get their picture uploaded. Instead of waiting until Tuesday to get autoconfirmed I wanted to request someone to upload it. But when you click 'submit request' it goes to some Sri Lankan airport page...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_upload (go there and click submit request)

am I missing something?

Jasonwilczak (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Someone had mistakenly pasted an article in place of the content of Wikipedia:Files for upload/Wizard. I have reverted that mistake. Thank you for pointing it out. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

ah,hehe, thank you. I was thoroughly confused, being my first time. I managed to just edit the main page and put a request in manually, so I'm being helped, but it was quite a funny moment. Thank you for resolving it.

Jasonwilczak (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Jasonwilczak, when you become a really experienced Wikipedia editor, then you, too, can blank Wikipedia's main page. (That's an old Wikipedia joke. Lame, isn't it?) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

New Article Question

Hi,

I just started contributing to Wikipedia. As an expert in Life Hack, Prouductivity, Time management, etc., i am thinking about contribute towards these field. But i don't see much articles related to this field. Is it possible to create new articles based on these topics?

Ashok (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Of course you can create more articles. Please read the instructions at

WP:CREATE for more information. Zince34' 08:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you were talking about your declined request here, then I probably suggest to read guidelines about referencing. Zince34' 08:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank for the info. I will check it out. Ashok (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

\

how to write an essay on why not to give out personal information on the internet 207.204.65.132 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. - Arjayay (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Arjayay is right. If you're asking on how to do a homework, we are afraid that we can't help you. All you can do is to research more or search for pages related to what you have to find on Wikipedia and be sure to name the sources. For more information, click on this page. And, remember, do your homework on your own. Cheers! --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 09:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Blanking page notice

I just want to know what template do we type to get the following:

Hello, I'm (blah blah blah). I noticed that you recently removed all content from (blah blah blah), with this edit (tagged with the difference), without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. (Signature)

I just want to know why people gave me this notice, 3 of them, wrote the same things (with no difference) except for those in the (brackets). May I ask what "shortcut" do they use? And if you replied, please "ping" or "reply to" me so I will know, or alternatively, you can use the {{teahouse talkback}} template and drop one on my talk page to inform me, or mention me here. Cheers! --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 09:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You will find it in twinkle, if you have enabled it. Zince34' 09:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:Nahnah4 That is level 1 - of the standard "Page blanking, removal of content" templates under Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace These cover numerous talk-page situations, in an ascending order of severity. Please read the documentation, which can be different for different templates, before using any of these. They can be used with, or without, Twinkle. - Arjayay (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit speed

Can the amount of data in a page make it slow to save changes ?

Regards, Zince34' 07:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zince34. Yes, in that your computer has to send the full data in order to make the change. You can edit sections, though - if you click on the "edit" next to a section header, you are only given that text. I do this a lot, especially when editing off a portable hot spot. - Bilby (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, but it took the same time to save the article and the section. But when I edit anywhere else, it's not so slow. Zince34' 10:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've known templates to slow things down as well. Mathematical notation can also take a bit of time to render. If you let us know what the page is I'd be happy to take a look and see if I can reproduce the problem. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article is ISS. Zince34' 10:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that just a really big article (and thanks for you edits there, btw). Nothing much we can do about that, except to edit the smallest chunk possible. I'm working on a large bibliography and the upload speeds eventually got bad enough that I'm now doing all of my editing offline and will just upload the final result once. If you're going to be doing lots of work on ISS, you might want to consider a similar approach. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Zince34' 10:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

title of article for review

Hello to all, I have an article waiting for review. It is about a musician: Cypress Grove. But in the heading wikipedia writes Cyprus Grove. Is it influential? Or will the article go on mainstream correctly? Because I can.t modify the heading in any way. Thank you for all the help I am receiving, you are very kind. Athenaathena07 (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The process to move a page is at WP:move. It would have been moved to the correct place if and when the AFC draft was approved for publication to mainspace, but I have moved the draft for you, to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cypress Grove (musician), because Cypress Grove already exists as a disambiguation page. One thing which you could usefully do while you wait for it to be reviewed would be to read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style; there are still various discrepancies, such as formatting of dates and formatting of text. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

URL removed when editing in user sandbox

I have been creating a page in my user sandbox which I hope to upload to wikipedia when it is finished. However when I try to cite a webpage, I click save page and the link shows up in the reference section, however when I go back to edit the page the URL has been removed. I know that the formatting is correct as I have copied references from other pages into my sandbox and the same thing happens. I am really confused as to what could be causing this so any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks U Beetlejuice U (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi U Beetlejuice U, welcome to the Teahouse. The edit [2] gave a link in footnote 3. If you didn't see the link afterwards then maybe you had to bypass your cache. I see you keep removing and restoring the link. Restore it and try to bypass your cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)