Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 204

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 200←Archive 202Archive 203Archive 204Archive 205Archive 206→Archive 210

Wiki project

I have seen baseball wiki projects and want to add on to them but i cant. Do you have to be a member of the project, or be invited in to it, Cause i know a lot of stuff that should be on it. So is there a way i can conributte to any sports wiki projects.Tylkrby767 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. Check out Baseball Portal - Projects and Things and review the section titled "Things you can do". Or at WikiProject Baseball read the green box to the left and look for "Everybody is welcome to add their name to the list of participants", which contains a link to the list of participants. I don't see a project page for the Kansas City Royals, but there's one for the Cinncinati Reds.
At the same time, make sure you have read all the articles recommended to you on your talk page. Some very experienced, friendly editors have cautioned you about various issues and have offered great advice. If you follow their recommendations, you can become an important member of one or more of the baseball WikiProjects.
Best regards - Mark D Worthen PsyD 02:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Tying an update to a talk entry

Is there a commonly used way to tie an update to a specific entry on the article's Talk page? Mandruss (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit summary could link to the relevant section on the talk page, using [[Talk:Article name#Section name]]. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I want to upload a photo to a page

This ought to be simple but seems so difficult! I have a photo of my own original poster from the 1970 Bath Festival of Blues and Progressive Music which has it's own page...I thought it would be a good update to the page. I have an account but have only made one update to any page in 8 years..why the rule to make 10 updates before I can upload a photo? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick. I went into EDIT mode on the page but couldn't see how to upload a photo so here I am! Sydwall (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sydwall. If you are the copyright holder and are willing to release a photo of the poster under a Creative Commons license, then go to our sister site, Wikimedia Commons, and upload it there. If someone else holds the copyright such as the festival promoter, then ask a followup question here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Cullen, I am a very new contributor and also want to add a photo (of Bishop George Mackarness) to a page that currently has no image. The photo is on another website for which I'm the administrator, so I tried putting in a link to that, but it didn't work.PatienceMackarness (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello PatienceMackarness. Because George Mackarness died in 1883, we can be sure that copyright has long expired on any photo of him. Please upload the photo to our sister project Wikimedia Commons. The upload wizard will walk you through the process. Once you are done, it will give you the wikicode needed to use the photo on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Sydwall. No, it doesn't work to link to a picture outside Wikipedia. You first have to upload the picture to either Wikimedia Commons (where all Wikimedia projects can use it) or to Wikipedia. However, issues of copyright make this difficult. It's not enough that you are the administrator of a site where the picture is hosted: you need to get the owner of the copyright (often the photographer, but not necessarily) to explicitly release the photo with a suitable licence (which allows anybody to use it for any purpose, provided it is attributed). Please see the donating copyrighted materials page for how to go about this. --ColinFine (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
ColinFine, copyright has expired on photos from the 19th century, and this man died in 1883. Any photo published before 1923 can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons freely. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses folks. My photo is merely of a poster from an event in 1970. I own the poster. There is a photo of a different poster there already and the display of that one has a good explanation that a low-res picture for illustrative purposes does not violate US copyright law. My poster is very different from that on display already and is perhaps more in keeping with 70s style graphic art, though I appreciate that the editors might not want a second poster there

Sydwall (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring BLP PRODs

What can be done it a user is ignoring BLP PRODs, not adding references to his articles, and actively creating new articles similarly unreferenced? Thanks, Matty.007 16:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Matty.007: Try leaving a note on their talk page telling them not to do this. If that doesn't work, try starting a thread on WP:ANI. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 16:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The user is Dr. A.K. Anil, over 5 unsourced BLPs, which in themselves give a warning, but I also left a note. Final warning? Thanks, Matty.007 16:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

how do I insert cross-reference to another wikipedia article?

I don't know how to indicate latae sententitiae has a wikipedia listing. Thanks.Min Bee (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Min Bee. You do this by adding a wikilink! Wikilinks are added by using double square brackets like so: [[Latae sententiae]], giving you Latae sententiae. Sam Walton (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks much,Sam.I've made the insertion.Min Bee (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

First try at editing removed, what is next step?

Hi, Helper, I recently added information about an academic study of The New York Times to the Wikipedia NYT article under the coverage subsection. I gave a citation, but my edit was removed with the comment that it showed POV and Undue and I should get consensus. It's a solid study, cited in an academic journal and written by highly qualified academic experts, so I am convinced it should be included, especially since a similar study is already in the subsection. I am new to this and ready to revise and try again to do it right this time. Tell me, how do I get consensus? Can you walk me through the next steps? Many thanks! zeke1314 April 27, 2014Zeke1314 (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Zeke1314. To attain a consensus, go to the talk page of the NY Times article, and describe the study you were talking about. Ask that other editors look it over to see if it's something that can meet Wikipedia standards. When in doubt ask...especially if it's something that may be disputable. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
To be honest that sounds like someone with ownership issues as the burden of demonstrating verifiability is met with a reliable source and should not be removed with a note telling an editor to "get consensus first" that is simply not how Wikipedia works.--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Every book ever written about the New York Times would be a large set. The one User:Zede1314 wanted to add is here. Another editor removed it here. Zede1314 has not yet joined in discussion on the article talk page. When there are many books and articles to choose from, we should get a selection that complies with WP:NPOV. This can be decided by consensus. There is already a well-referenced section in the article on whether NYT has a pro-Israel bias and there are previous discussions on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

How do I get the notability tag removed?

Hi, I confess up front - I'm a Wikipedia newbie.

I have written my first article: Chris Bradford (rock musician), and added lots of references throughout it. But a notability tag has turned up, making the article look very suspicious.

I checked the notability article - Wikipedia:Notability (music)

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria... (my article meets the following THREE criteria)


2.Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.[note 4]
5.Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).
6.Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably-prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 6] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses.

I think my article meets the criteria. How do I get the notability tag removed?

Hope someone can help me here.

THANKS!!

Billy900 (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Billy900, I'd recommend leaving a message at User talk:Animalparty, copying what you just wrote here, and asking if s/he has any objections to you removing the notability tag. Or maybe someone here will just have a closer look and remove the tag themselves. Worst case, if you and Animalparty can't agree, you can always leave a message at WP:3O to get a third opinion from another user. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion.

I'll try that first.

Cheers!!

Billy900 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Where do I find the full key for shorthand editing descriptions?

When I edit an article and I want to make clear in the history what changed (such as rv. for revert, which is one of the few I remember), where can I find the full key with all the shorthand descriptions (so I'm not writing out things like "changed minor grammatical errors", "inserted a citation", etc)? Downthewikiwormhole (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Edit summary legends is what you are looking for, Downthewikiwormhole. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Grand Nationals 1960 -1969 (inclusive)

Hello, I have fill in ALL requested missing information regarding all NON-FINISHERS for each race during the 1960's, however underneath it when I check the final page on the site, it stated that the information needs to be EXPANDED. All the missing information that was requested has now been FILLED IN. I look forward to your response. Beesknees91 (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Beesknees91. If you have resolved the issue, then remove the tag yourself. Such tags are generated by template wikicode enclosed in double curly brackets. Delete the template entirely, explaining why in your edit summary. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

How to get an article about a not so famous magazine on wikipedia ?

hello there, i often see all the famous people and companies on wikipedia ,but what does a small time company have to do to get their own article on wikipedia ? thanks in advance !Aanch.sethi (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

We have plenty of articles about topics that most people would not consider "famous" but which are considered notable as Wikipedia defines that term. We are looking for significant coverage of the topic in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Category Not accepted during Wikimedia Commons Image up load

I have been adding some more images of Supermarine S.6 to Commons. When I got to adding Categories it would not accept Supermarine S.6 if I typed it, but would if I copied and pasted from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Supermarine_S.6 . I checked for my typos several times. Is the problem with me or elsewhere? SovalValtos (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@SovalValtos: Hey SovalValtos. Were you possibly typing [[Category:Supermarine_S.6]] (with the underscore, as appears in the URL), rather than [[Category:Supermarine S.6]]?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
No. I was typing solely

Supermarine S.6

as similarly I had typed

Schneider Trophy

which was accepted. In general it does not seem necessary to type Category: xxxxx Try it yourself. SovalValtos (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to bring this up at our technical village pump WP:VPT, which is where the technical troubleshooters tend to hang out. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
VPT won't help, this is a Commons issue and needs bring up there, c:Commons:Village pump or c:Commons:Help desk are better fora. Nthep (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

How do I deal with a page redirect that I disagree with?

I created a page that I think is important and significantly different from the topic that it was redirected to. I am new to editing Wikipedia and this is the first page that I created and invested a lot of time and effort into making it good enough to be approved as a page. It is really frustrating to see it redirected the next day in response to my request for assistance to improve it from Class-C to Class-B quality. The topic was redirected as POV, even though it had citations for almost everything. The topic was about a major startup ecosystem located in a village-like environment. As far as I know, that is uncommon and most are located in urban environments. The topic was redirected to the largest city in the area (population of 22,000). The name of the topic was Startup Village, Yokneam. The redirect was to Yokneam.

How should I deal with this? How can I get the redirect removed from Startup Village, Yokneam. Unclefeet (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Your first step is to discuss the matter with Huon who redirected. That editors's comments on the talk page indicates that in their opinion, you have not yet established that the topic is notable, and that several references did not mention the project. So address those issues, please, Unclefeet. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipreoject

How do i join a wiki project i try to edit with my knowledge but it wont let me. Is there a way i can contribute to that article.Tylkrby767 (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Most wikiprojects have a readily visible member list, and joining is as easy as adding your username to that list, Tylkrby767. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I dont get it Cullen328 Let's discuss it because there was one about the St Loius Cardnnails baseball team and it woldnt let me edit. Could you explain a little more Thanks.Tylkrby767 (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Go to the project you want, Tylkrby767, and click on the list of members. This project has 35 members and is inactive, but maybe you can restart it. Click the "edit" tab at the top of the page, scroll to the bottom, and add a hashtag and your signature, like everyone else did. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) @Tylkrby767: Hey Tylkrby767. I'm just guessing here, because you have not clearly identified which page you had a problem editing, but was it this page? If so, the issue has nothing to do with whether or not you are a member of the Wikiproject. (In fact, being a member of a wikiproject is simply an identification of an interest, a way to declare you might be willing to collaborate and so on, and gives you no "permissions" to edit something that you otherwise could not.) If it was that page, then the issue is that the text you see on that page is from other transcluded pages, and unfortunately, it's really quite difficult without a lot of experience to even figure out what those pages are from the code on the page when you click edit. Here it would be Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis Cardinals/right side and Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/left side. But there are a few sections on that project page that have links in the body to allow you to edit, including the section on adding your name to the Wikiproject. Look at the bottom right of the list of current members (below the scroll bar) and you'll see links to "view | edit". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Stub class = red title and not found when searching Wikipedia?

I wrote a new article about a peer-reviewed academic journal, Psychological Injury and Law (journal), which, as you can see is 'linkable' (for lack of a better term). However, if one searches Wikipedia for "psychological injury and law" or "psychological injury and law journal" the article does not appear in the search results. Also, the article title is in red text. Is all this because it is a Stub class article? Many thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD 01:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The reason why you don't immediately find the article in the search results is that the article was created only yesterday evening, and the search database can take a day or so to update, see Help:Searching#Delay in updating the search index. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, a perfectly good reason. Thank you for helping me understand. Mark D Worthen PsyD 02:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
You might also want to add a {{For}} hatnote at the existing article Psychological_injury or its sub-section Psychological Injury and Law, so people can find the new article with its very similar name. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, excellent suggestion! Thank you--or as we say down South, "I appreciate you" (with 'appreciate' enunciated precisely, and 'you' long and drawn out). But don't get me wrong now, we're sophisticated folks here in the southern USA. We learned all about you Aussie blokes at our local Outback Steakhouse, dontchya know. [tongue firmly implanted in cheek ...] - Mark D Worthen PsyD 13:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, thank goodness that you didn't mention Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport, which caught me deep truths about Australia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, Is it possible for someone to copy my signature's script, paste it in his preferences page signature section, and use it pretending me?? Aftab Banoori (Talk) 12:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Aftabbanoori: They'd have a hard time impersonating you because their real username would show up in the page history. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 12:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
But superficially, they can make it appear to be by you, to someone who doesn't check the page history. Although simple copypasting is much easier than pasting into a preferences page signature
As an example, although we both know you didn't, a simple copy-paste makes it appear that you wrote this - Aftab Banoori (Talk) 12:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
However, AFAIK, the (ab)use of a signature in that way should send you a "ping" - provided you have checked the "mention" box under Preferences, Notifications - Arjayay (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jakob & Arjayay, I understand now Aftab Banoori (Talk) 15:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Corecting a stub

A couple of problems with a cheese stub:

  • Caş should redirect to Caș. Instead the pages are the other way around. The corect sign is ș with a comma. The cedilla variant is wrong and only used because systems older than Windows XP have it wrong.
  • What's the point to reference a word dictionary? The reference is also in Romanian. Should I ask for a translation with 'Source need translation' or plain remove the link?
  • Should cow milk and sheep milk be links in this context?
  • Does the third reference, also in Romanian, have a point? Should I ask for a translation in such a case?
  • What can be done about the template?
    • Bryndza is the generic word for cheese if written as Brânză
    • Bryndza spelled like that is a Polish cheese, nothing to do with Romania
    • Năsal is a comercial trade mark and not a traditional cheese. It has only one maker and no published recipie or description like Cheddar cheese

How do I corect citation issues? Somebody introduced a reference to an unreliable Romanian tabloid. Something like The Sun in United Kingdom. And many food related articles give lists of fictive foods as having protected designation of origin. I corected the telemea article. But

  • should I ask for a translation?
  • should I ask for a better source?
  • should I remove the wrong part?

Năsal cheese should be considered unreferenced? There are two references, one about food odor and one in Hungarian.

  • there are no references to the fame of this chese
  • there are no references about a prize at Paris World Expo, while the expo is linked
  • the history of the cheese is fantesistic and unreferenced
  • the count mentioned in the legend has no name or any other reference, pretty much like [arabian nights]

Sorry for the long message, but these articles are a mess. And a shame for any Romanian. I want to fix them, but I lack the experience and understanding. Ableci (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ableci and welcome to The Teahouse. I will try to answer as many questions as I can, but I can't give an answer to them all.
If you have a source for the incorrect redirect we could do a move, which may require administrator help since someone would have to move to an existing page.
Sources in other languages are fine, but if one can be found in English it is preferable. I'm not sure what the policy is on using a dictionary as a reference.
Yes, my opinion is that types of milk should be linked.
I'm not sure what you mean by template.
As for the types of cheese, I would have to assume you know what you are talking about but a source would help.
If you know a source to be unreliable, you can put the following after "</ref>": {{unreliable source}}. Or you can remove it and replace it with {{cn}}..
Do what you can if you don't feel confident. Each article has a talk page. For the page you mentioned first, that would be Talk:Caș. After clicking on that link click on "New section" at the top of the page. Or at least that's how it works for me.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I see there is a red link, so instead of clicking on "New section", you would just start typing once you clicked. You would add a section heading at the top:
==Correcting a stub==

— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Vchimpanzee for your answer.
Do you think breaking up the long list into individual questions would help?
For the move I am going to do what is written into the move reference.
About the linked types of milk, I find it silly in this particular case. I have checked so far feta, emmental cheese and raclette and these respectable cheeses do not have that particular link. In the case of caș it is a stub. Second it is about a generic category like saying yellow cheese. Third last time I went to the market caș was made of any milk available. The examples above are all respected and protected types that are made of a specific milk. They might have variations, but mainly there is only one way to do it.
By template I meant that frame at the end of the article that contains a listing of a certain category (I think). Please do read the page, it is only a stub and quite obvious.
You are right about needing a source before making changes to that end-of-page-table. It is a bit ironic, as the original poster did not have one. For the bryndza just check up the linked page.
Very useful the example for unreliable sources. In my particular case, please do check telemea. I have the proof at the source of PDO that the quoted source is a lie.
Finally, about the talk pages, what is the way to reach a conclusion? Is there a time to lave the issue open than move on with the changes? How are the issues solved? How do I prevent somebody reading the fake/wrong source from making the same mistake a year later? Ableci (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to take so long to respond. There was nothing on my talk page and I didn't know you needed further help because I didn't happen toi come back here. I was very busy.
If there is a lot to talk about, individual questions might be better.
Regarding the types of milk, I thought if those were the specific types of milk, it would be useful to have links to them. On the other hand, if caș can be any milk, maybe it is not necessary. If someone else wrote a better article and did not link them, maybe it is not necessary. It's all about what people might want to research further.
I still don't know what you want to do about the template. I didn't know which one you were talking about, and I don't see anything wrong now.
I really don't know what the correct procedure is for reaching conclusions on talk pages. There is a link to talk page above that should point you to some information. — Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
And after checking, I actually don't see anything. That's surprising. I should refer you to WP:BRD which might help you know how to discuss possible changes. Someone has to to discuss these issues with you, though, and I'm not sure how to do that other than to look at the history ("view history" at the top of each article) and click on the talk page of each editor who made a major contribution. These are the people most likely to have an interest.
To keep someone from going back to the wrong source, clearly identify the wrong source as unreliable in your edit summary, and maybe comment on the article talk page. Another way I've seen done is to leave a comment in the article itself so people will see it when editing. To do that, use text similar to the following: <!-- Do not use this unreliable source again -->— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to learn how to begin a new article in Wiki

I understand that Google is getting lots of searches for "Daniel Fast", which is missing from Wiki. I've basically written the article (both from a religious and current meaning perspective), but don't know how to start a new topic. Please advise. Sorry, never mind. I've found and read.32cllou (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Bilingual Page

Hi, We are interested in creating a page which would be bilingual - i.e. in English and an Aboriginal language translation side by side. This approach is appropriate to the topic. Could we get some advice on whether this would fit in? Ta. 1.125.170.147 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi 1.125.170.147, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's an intriguing question. This in English Wikipedia and by default, articles use English. Having said that, if as you say this is suitable for the topic then there are ways to present it. As a first step, which Aboriginal language are you talking about? Does it have it's own ISO language code? does it use the Latin alphabet? I hope that I will be able to help you.  Philg88 ♦talk 16:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation problems

Hi guys.

I'm having problems with citations in this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortstraw

Can anyone help me, I want to ensure the article doesn't get deleted.

Mark Markness101 (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mark, and welcome to The Teahouse. The formatting of the citations is fine, although I found one simple correction that I could make. One problem is that a lot of those sources are blogs, and in general those are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia. The exception is if the blog is by a reputable author who works for a newspaper or a respected publisher or web site which has a reputation for editorial control over content.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Leaders of Native American renegade bands

Hi all,

After a user challenged the notability of a Wikipedia article I created (my first), I thought it raised an interesting question for the larger community (and perhaps one that has already been answered in the past):

do the leaders of small, renegade Native American bands merit inclusion in Wikipedia?

The subject in question led a small village of "disaffected" Native Americans from a few different tribes, numbering about 100 in all; dealt land to settlers to which he claimed he held rights; complained to colonial authorities on multiple occasions about settlers' dealings with him; and according to one historian, appeared to have plotted some kind of aggressive act to bring other tribes "down" on farmers and settlers in the area where he lived. He was thought to have fled his original tribal unit; and fled a second time after killing a Native American whose name appears to be lost to history.

There is very little historical information about him out there -- I have been able to find only three or four references to citations in colonial records and scholar articles, and so the Wikipedia article itself is by necessity brief, only about five paragraphs long.

I would be interested to know whether marginal Native American leaders who led renegade bands have been chronicled on Wikipedia. It struck me as worthy of the historical record, but it is a borderline case and I could see how other's could view him as not having sufficient historical weight to merit his own article.

CasoulmanCasoulman (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, CasoulmanThe criterion for accepting a subject for an article in Wikipedia is quite clear and simple, but not what people unused to Wikipedia might expect. It is not importance, fame, or worthiness: it is simply what Wikipedia calls "notability"; in other words, has the subject already been written about in multiple reliable places, independent of the subject, such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers? The sources do not have to be online, or even in English (though it's easier if they are) but they have to exist, and treat the subject at some length. So, if there have been books, or newspaper or journal articles about these leaders, then they "merit inclusion", and any article must cite these sources to demonstrate this fact. If there haven't been, then no matter how important they were historically, they may not have Wikipedia articles; for the simple reason that it will be impossible to write a satisfactory Wikipedia article about them. --ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks ColinFine -- by that standard, my entry on Chickens Warrups would appear to not merit a separate article in Wikipedia, then. I have found multiple historical resources that mention him (colonial records, historical book and mentions in articles published in academic journals), but all reference him in relation to the history of Connecticut, and not profiling him alone as an independent figure of historical significance. I may delete the article I wrote (assuming one can do so), but will wait a few days for any additional comment here.

Thanks again ...Casoulman (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You can't delete the article yourself, since this requires an administrator. And since others have contributed to Chickens Warrups it would have to be nominated for deletion. See WP:DELETE and particularly WP:Proposed deletion for more. There would be a discussion, but it might be true that the man can qualify for an article in Wikipedia. A discussion would have to take place and others might believe him to be notable.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

How many images is too many?

How many images is too many? Specifically, I'm looking at the Kim Yuna article which has 31 images showing her. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kirin13. I like American sake. Anyway, I think that most editors would agree that 31 images is a bit excessive for almost all articles. If we have that many relevant images on Wikimedia, then maybe a Wikimedia topic link may help the "image obsessive" among us. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
What does that mean in terms of what edits I would need to do? Also, this article and similar ones, often are edited by a fanbase which would highly disapprove of me removing any images - is there some policy/documentation that I can point to saying that it's excessive? Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
"Excessive" is a matter of editorial judgment, Kirin13. For guidance, I recommend starting at Manual of style - images. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
So, what are the steps I need to do? Or do I just leave the articles alone? Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@Kirin13: I would be bold and remove the images that you think are excessive. If someone else reverts (undoes) your change, then discuss on the article's talk page and explain your reasoning. WP:BRD has a bit of info about this editing approach. You can cite policies in the talk page discussion if you'd like (like Cullen pointed you to), but really it will come down to editorial judgment. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying to create a biographical page for a professor

Hi there, I'm new to Wiki page and article creation and need a little help, so I'm not plagiarizing or crossing lines during the process. I would like to use a lot of the content from this professor's University of Washington webpage that would contain his academic background and publications, etc., but I don't know how I would go about doing that. Can I basically use all of the content if I site it or reference it, or how does that work? Thanks for your assistance! Friesianfighter (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Friesianfighter and welcome to the Teahouse. You can definitely use the professor's webpage as a reference and include a link to it at the end of the article. See the Sandra Waxman page as an example. However, you cannot copy - everything must be in your own words. And most importantly, the professor must be "notable" which means having been noticed and written about, before you write the article. You need to find references independent of him to show that he has gotten awards, made an impact in his field, or been otherwise well known. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics). What he has written doesn't matter as much as what has been written ABOUT him. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sections not displaying

Hi, I'm working on a new article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Bouqs_Company

and I'm having trouble getting everything to display appropriately on the page. If you view the page and click to edit, you'll see there is an entire section labeled == Technology == that doesn't get displayed at all. Could some please explain to me what I'm doing wrong? I imagine I must have a format error or something but I've been banging my head against the wall for a while and it's totally alluding me.

Thank you very much

David Condrey (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey David - the error was that one of your reference tags wasn't closed. I went ahead and fixed it in this edit. Good luck! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh thank you so much. I've been trying to find a syntax module for Textmate for Wikipedia syntax so I can catch those kind of errors.. I'm not all that fluent in Wikipedia's syntax so I guess it's easy to mess up.

David Condrey (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

New article

I'd like to add an article in Wikipedia. It would be about myself (I'm a published author.) I've read the materials and it seems I can't write it about myself. That's fine, I don't have much interest in being a Wiki editor. How do I go about requesting an article gets written? (I have a rough draft complete with sources.) Thanks, John 142.255.100.31 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, John, and welcome to The Teahouse. If you pass our notability guidelines you can submit a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi John! If you want, you can find a "Host" in the Tea house that would be willing to type it up for you. But if that doesn't work out, you can simply ask your sister, wife, Mom, grandma to write it! Wishing you the best of luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savannah8280008 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to disagree with Savannah8280008, but the type of people mentioned have a conflict of interest that would make it very difficult for them to write a neutral biography. I recommend against this approach. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone I know died today. Is he notable? Can I create an article?

Hi there. I'm a newbie here. Someone I knew in passing died today. He was a prolific editorialist, a contributor to numerous think tank projects, and his death -- and contribution in life -- was noted on various credible media sites (the Guardian, Vox, etc). At the same time, I am also loathe to commit a COI violation, and am not entirely sure about the standards of notability. He was noted in today's Deaths in 2014 page. I would appreciate guidance. Many thanks. Krmaher18 (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Krmaher18 and welcome to the Teahouse. Unless you are related to or closely involved with the individual in question, there would be no conflict of interest in you creating an article. Sources such as The Guardian are considered reliable and providing you have at least three or four separate references of the same standard you should have no problems. If you use submit your draft through the articles for creation mechanism an editor will soon tell you if there are any issues. Good luck!  Philg88 ♦talk 06:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for the guidance! Krmaher18 (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, while 3 or 4 references would be great, I believe we do not delete BLP articles with at least one reliable source unless there is a notability issue.--Maleko Mela (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Relist

What do you mean by relisting a discussion ? Zince34' 11:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zince34. This is something commonly seen at Articles for deletion - if, after a seven day period, the reviewing admin is unable to establish a consensus (if not enough people have contributed to the discussion, or the arguments made don't show a clear preference for one particular course of action) that admin will often relist the discussion to gain more input. This basically just moves it back into the current (and hence most heavily viewed) AFD queue. A discussion can be relisted two or even three times if necessary, before it gets closed as "no consensus". Does that help explain it? Yunshui 雲水 12:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
@Yunshui: So you mean only admins can relist ? Zince34' 10:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@Zince34: Generally, yes. Occasionally a non-admin relisting can be appropriate, e.g. if the nomination has not received any comments during the initial listing period -- so it's obvious even to a non-admin that relisting is the correct course of action. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
There's no technical reason that non-admins can't relist discussions, but unless it's a very obvious relist (e.g. no-one's commented apart from the nominator) then it's probably better to leave it for an admin to take a look. Whilst a relisted discussion can still be closed without running for another week, if you relist the discussion, it's moved out of the list of discussions for closure. Since that's where most administrators will tend to look for discussions to close, you're basically forcing a discussion to continue when it might in fact be closeable. Still, there's certainly no prohibition against non-admin relists. Yunshui 雲水 08:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What form should an article about an A-road in the UK take?

I've been editing an article A478 road which is essentially a list. I see that other roads such as A477 road are mainly prose. Is there a guideline on the Wiki-preferred format? My personal view is that the list format is clearer for this sort of article. Thanks! Tony Holkham (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Prose is generally preferred, although I can see your case for using a list format here. My suggestion would be to trim the article down a bit and focus on the main sections of the route; see the A40 article for a suitable layout. Yunshui 雲水 12:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that Tony Holkham (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello All, Please read and tell me if this is ready for submission. I have had a lot of trouble meeting the guidelines for this.

IPC Information Systems Inc., is a provider of American voice trading systems to financial companies including investments, hedge funds and investments managers (1). The company’s written aim is to deliver “unified solutions that support collaborative voice trading, real-time electronic trading and market data connectivity” (2) is a proprietary managed private IP network (2) to financial market participants. IPC provides and services voice communication systems that facilitate operations within the financial industry. The firm is known for creating and updating trading turrets – specialized, multi-line, multi-speaker communications devices used by traders. By providing these services to more than 600 financial services it was voted highest among the top competitors (3). Turrets can have access to hundreds of lines and allow traders to monitor multiple connections simultaneously to maintain communication with counterparties, liquidity providers, intermediaries and exchanges (4). Companies similar to IPC, include BT and Orange Business Services (6). An effective desktop will provide multiple market data screens while giving the option to using instant messaging for colleague communications while checking on incoming calls. IPC Systems created services to better manage internal communication. (7) IPC Systems launched their voice recording management (VRM) service which is meant to help companies with their voice recording compliance efforts and reduce operational risks of managing the system and improve flexibility. (8)

Reference List 1. "IPC Systems Rings The NASDAQ Stock Market Closing Bell", Nasdaq, 31 July 2013. Retrieved on 10 June 2013. 2. Fangqing, Wang. "Turret Maker IPC Gains Ground in Asia", Securities Technology Monitor, 26 March 2007. Retrieved on June 2013. 3. IPC Named Best Trading Turret Provider." International Finance for Global Investors. Institutional Investor, 30 June 2008. Web. 29 Apr. 2014. 4. "Capturing Traders’ Hearts and Minds with Practical, Beautiful, Foolproof Design", Frog Design, Retrieved on 10 June 2013 5. Beck, John. "Trading Floor Makeover", 01 July 2009. Retrieved on 10 June 2013. 6. Anderson, Victor. "Best Trading Turret: IPC." Www.waterstechnology.com. Waters, 23 Aug. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2014. 7. "Trading Newsflashes: Silver Lake Partners Acquires IPC Information Systems From GS Partners for $800 Million", Wall Street and Technology, 03 August 2006. Retrieved on 10 June 2013 8. Jawoski, Alexa. "Merrill Installs IPC VoIP Trading Turrets", Securities Technology Monitor, 19 November 2007. Retrieved on 10 June 2013

Hi DS132. The answer is pretty much the same as in this answer to your previous question, here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 203#Why can't this page get published. You have two copies of the article now, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IPC Systems and User:DS132/sandbox. Which one are you working on? I will give you some more suggestions on your talk page. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for all your help! Can you respond give me suggestions to this current article on the Teahouse discussion?

DS132 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I've put the review comments back on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IPC Systems. You have enough independent sources. Sources from industry publications are fine as long as they are reporting or announcing awards, not just reprinting press releases. The article reads like a sales brochure, but it should be easy to rewrite it into encyclopedia form. Start out with a sentence like:
IPC Systems is an American company headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey that provides trading communication systems for the financial services industry. They are known for the creation of the trading turret.
Next put the company history. Company press releases are OK as a source for facts. Here is where to explain what a trading turret is. And the introduction of the VoIP version. Thanks for including an explanation of what the company's product does. Many editors don't include that in company articles. An encyclopedia article shows how the company developed over time.
Leave out marketing language like: The company’s written aim is to deliver "unified solutions that support collaborative voice trading, real-time electronic trading and market data connectivity."
Let me know if you have any more questions. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm kind of a newbie to editing. There is a bio page of a favorite actress which has no image of her. I would like to upload a photo but I cannot tell if its under any sort of copyright. I tied to look up the source and that provides nothing. Its a formal portrait like you would find in a press package. Can I upload it under Creative Commons or what?? thanks much!! Utnijlj (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No, if you cannot find a source you should not use it. As that could bring Wikipedia into legal troubles. Which is a very big no. I suggest you find another image that is allowed. Or try to find the source for a little while longer. NathanWubs (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Is the actress still alive?
Incidentally but separately, even if the actress is still alive, if you were able to find a justification similar to the one here then the image could be used. That's a publicity photo that was taken a long-ish time ago and never released as "free" as we understand it - of course it requires knowing the source or at least physically possessing the original promotional material. In this case the latter, and also I quote in this case "It is unclear as to whether the press-materials were distributed by Qualis Productions (the company that produced the series), 20th Century Fox Television (the company that co-produced the series), or ABC Television (the network that aired the series)", but still permissible for the other reasons given there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

To revert or not to revert...

Still a novice editor, I would appreciate suggestions from the more experienced people here.

Going through some of the articles in Category:Pages_with_missing_references_list, I came across U.S._Congress_and_citizens. The most recent edit was by an IP, who deleted the entire Reference section with the comment "(Tag: section blanking)".

The old references were different from what I am used to, with lots of long quotations from the US constitution etc. I'm not sure whether that approach is good or bad, but just deleting everyhing, including the Reflist, seems a bit heavy-handed. I should mention that the Talk page does not appear to be used; there is only one comment there, from 2010.

I would be grateful if somebody would take a look at the current (id=605983553) and previous (id=598362631) versions, and advise whether that edit should be reverted. Or is there some better way to deal with this? Gronk Oz (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Rule of thumb that I always keep is this. If someone just blanks a whole section that mostly means vandalism. But of course you should check to make if this is the case. In this case it seemed blatant vandalism to me so I undid what was done. NathanWubs (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you will find that the comment "(Tag: section blanking)" was not an edit summary added by the IP editor but a warning to watching editors added by the edit filter software, see Wikipedia:Tags. As NathanWubs implied, such tags are often a useful pointer to vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Great - thanks again for the help, Nathan and David. --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem, also one more tip. If you see something that looks like vandalism. Then check the user contributions after you are done with reverting. As a lot of vandals like to spread their vandalism around. Sometimes on pages that are almost never checked. Which can result in an act of vanadalism being in an article for a long time. So be vigilant NathanWubs (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point, thanks. I have not had to deal with vandalism before, so it helps to have this perspective. I just checked this case, and there are no other "Contributions" for that IP. Of course, IP addresses change, but it's worth checking. --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd just like to re-emphase NathanWub's important point "But of course you should check to make if this is the case". The most common cause of section blanking (or entire article blanking) not being vandalism is outlined in the early part of Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats, and the issues mentioned there - WP:BLP - are a lot more important than just some ordinary vandalism happening to an article. It's well worth reading. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
One extra tip. I notice that you had earlier included in your question the markup [[Category:Pages_with_missing_references_list]], and subsequently realised that this didn't display, but it put this help page into the category referred to. In a revision to your question you removed the wiki markup, but the easy way of avoiding this problem is to precede the category name by a colon, thus [[:Category:Pages with missing references list]], which is rendered as the link Category:Pages with missing references list (so I've taken the liberty of making that edit to your question to include the link). The same technique of a preceding colon is used for inter-wiki language links. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Album cover and single cover

How can I put some album cover or single cover for the pages I created about songs? Thank you DridsOBrien (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello DridsObrien. Album covers are for the most part copyrighted, and therefore not free use. Wikipedia as a rule shies away from using non-free use pictures and logos. For future reference, there is a tab on the side of the page called "Upload file". Follow the instructions after hitting it to upload images, but as I said before, it's best to avoid non-free use pictures. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello DridsOBrien. Low resolution images of album covers are permitted under our guideline on non-free content. Please see WP:NFCI #1, and follow that guideline carefully. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
But they would probably be allowed on an article about the album, but not on articles about the individual songs. --ColinFine (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The same guideline applies, for example, to classic singles released as 45 rpm records. In that case, a photo of the record label of the single side is permitted. But it wouldn't apply to articles about individual album tracks, even those that became notable hits, in my opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

How to create another page for a person who is in different field

If a page with the same name exist already how can we create another page as the field of person is different and i don't want to edit the existing page of a person as both are popular in their respective fieldsNovoiceplus (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Novoiceplus: Hi Novoiceplus. Please tell us the name of the name of the existing page and the topic of the intended article. In very general terms, this is a disambiguation question but what to do depends on various factors. For example, if the existing page is the primary topic then it should remain at the main title and the new title should have a disambiguated name, possibly through natural disambiguation by including a middle initial or name, or possibly through a parenthetically disambiguated title, coupled with a hatnote on the primary topic's article. If there is no primary topic, then the main title should be occupied by a disambiguation page and both pages should take disambiguated names. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Article titles generally, and especially their subsections at WP:PRECISION, WP:PTOPIC and WP:TWODABS among others. I have presented this as a black and white, two option scenario but this does not cover all possibilities that arise. Again, if you supply the specifics, advice can be tailored. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

soc pupet

I have seen poor people on wiki being investigated for sock puppet. Could you just tell me what the hell is a sock puppet. Redsfan21 (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Redsfan21 and welcome to the Teahouse. A sock puppet is a user who uses multiple account for improper multiple purpose they often try attempt to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. To read more about what suckpuppetry is you can go to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry Miszatomic (Talk) 13:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing statements from articles

According to Wikipedia:Perennial proposals, people may not remove well sourced information they believe isn't true. I'm wondering if the reason is because in almost all cases, the editor was wrong and didn't believe the truth and would be removing true information without realizing it. I'm wondering if the same rule applies in cases where it's very clear that if somebody believe's something, it's true and all doubt about it would come from thinking the editor is lying rather than from not believing the truth. For example, if I saw the Scarborough RT article saying, 'No RT train has ever derailed' then later I saw one derail, could I remove the sentence 'No RT train has ever derailed' and write in the edit summary 'I saw one derail.' I think the rule about verifiability applies to articles but doesn't apply to edit summaries. Blackbombchu (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No; if the statement that no train has ever derailed is supported by reliable sources, then you should not remove it based on your personal observations, as that would constitute original research, which is prohibited at Wikipedia. Though it may seem silly, what you should do is wait until the train derailment has been reported in reliable sources, then cite those sources when you remove the statement. Otherwise, how can we be sure that you're telling the truth about what you saw? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It didn't actually happen. I only posed a hypothetical situation because I figured future editors might be in a similar situation and thought it would be useful for them to know whether they are allowed to remove a sentence. Blackbombchu (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I know, and that's what Mr. Hypothesis should've done in that hypothetical situation. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
In this hypothetical situation, would it be appropriate for the editor to record his personal observations on the Talk page, to make other editors aware that the statement is questionable? They may spot coverage in media which our hypothetical editor misses. If the evidence becomes stronger, should they perhaps add a "disputed" tag to direct people to the Talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gronk Oz (talk • contribs) 22:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it's perfectly reasonable to say on a talk page "The article says X, and has good references; but I think it should be Y because ...; does anybody know of any sources which argue against X?" I'm much less sure that you should put a 'disputed' tag on in this case. --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I will give a very specific example, and it relates to an edit I made to a specific article, Black Bear Diner, only a few minutes ago. There was a statement in that article until my edit that the restaurant chain does not serve alcohol, referenced to a review of their Redmond, Washington location. Last night, we ate at their Vallejo, California location. My wife and son both had a Corona beer, and I had a glass of Chardonnay. So, I just edited the article to say that some locations serve alcoholic beverages while others don't. I think this is a small but legitimate example of "ignore all rules", which is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and I think that the article (and the encyclopedia) is better for it. I am interested in the thoughts of other editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
It depends on what it is. I frequently edit crime articles and I'm constantly arguing over the language to describe someone to be convicted of a crime. I favor language like "this person was convicted of murder" vs. "this person is a murderer" because one can be proven and the other can be debated. Even if the proof is really, really good, there's still that chance that they could be innocent. Like Cullen's example, if your experiences have demonstrated that one source is inaccurate and another source is accurate, I think you can go ahead and use the one you know to be accurate. If there is really no way to verify which is accurate, figure out if you really need it. If you need it for whatever reason, cite both and say the literal truth is unknown. However, if only you know something to be true and every reliable source says something else, it's probably not right for wikipedia. Bali88 (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_204&oldid=1138267578"