Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 208

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 205

Archive 206

Archive 207

→

Kranti Kanade - 'appears to be written like an advertisement'

Hi! I work with Kranti Kanade and we noticed 'This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2011) & This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (February 2011)' We want to have these removed so as to improve the article's credibility. We seek help to make this article as genuine as possible.114.143.114.1 (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a repeat of Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Edit page below, where it was suggested that, you should read our guidelines on conflict of interest and neutral point of view, and then suggest changes, providing proper references, on the articles talk page. I don't know if you have read the guidelines referred to, but you have not suggested any changes, or provided any references, on the talk page. The advice remains the same - repeating the question will not change that. - Arjayay (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As per Arjayay's suggestion I have provided some points to be edited and added references.Gautam.rayakar (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Boldface for characters in plays

I looked at WP:Boldface which says that boldface should only be used for headings and lists. But I'm not sure whether characters in plays comes under this rule. Should characters in plays be written in bold or not. Surely it's best to be consistent in all plays. However I notice that characters in films are rarely written in bold so perhaps that is the way to go. Jodosma (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jodosma. If in doubt, avoid boldface, or any other form of emphasis. Remember we have a lot going on with wiki-links, foot-notes and other apparatus, so generally simpler is best. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

What happens if sources for an article are lacking?

TPTB (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Hello,

I have recently submitted an article and it was rejected because there weren't enough independent sources. I was just wondering what happens if there are no independent sources available.

What happens if i'm trying to write about a product and the only information about that product is located on that product's website?

I hope to hear from you soon.TPTB (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi TPTB and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that if the only information about a potential article is to be found on a commercial website, then the product isn't notable in Wikipedia terms and therefore not suitable for inclusion. Perhaps you need to wait a while until second and third party sources pick up on it. Sorry to disappoint, but there are thousands of similar products out there which would be treated in the same way. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Where do I propose changes to Main Articles without editing the Main Article.

Speculative reason or pure reason is theoretical (or logical, deductive) thought (sometimes called theoretical reason), as opposed to practical (active, willing) thought. The distinction between the two goes at least as far back as the ancient Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, who distinguished between theory (theoria, or a wide, bird's eye view of a topic, or clear vision of its structure) and practice (praxis), as well as techne.[1]...Praxis (process), the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, practiced, embodied, or realised[2]...This article seems to promote ambiguity if not contradiction in its presentation of what speculative reason is, as a subject that can only have circular definitions. It is only practical because it has been written...as for its practice it would be a direction toward oneself like involution; how do I propose a change (in Wiki) to the Speculative reason Main Article Arnlodg (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

For factual errors or misspellings, go to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. It sounds like you have more involved concerns about this article and I think it would be best to go to the article talk page and bring up your concerns and work to improve the article. It's almost the end of the Wikipedia day (UTC) and so the content will be changing in the near future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Arnlodg, I don't see this subject appearing on the Main Page in the past few weeks. I'm not sure what you mean by "main article". You can just edit any article that you choose but I suggest you discuss on the article talk page first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Arnlodg. As you can see, you have created confusion by not clearly identifying the article you're talking about, and by quoting the text of Speculative reason without making it clear that it was a quotation. As Liz has said, you are very welcome to improve the article directly (especially if you can add any references to reliable sources, which the article currently lacks - the "references" there may be valid as "further reading", but they are not Wikipedia references because they do not make clear what information in the article is being supported by what reference), or alternatively you can discuss your suggestions for improvement on Talk:Speculative reason. --ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference excerpts

Has there, or is there, any thought of adding some system where one can either write down, copy paste, post image etc. from referenced books, articles, etc?

This is years back, but remember I went trough some articles and did reference check on various topics. For example: the book "Accounts of a merchant by John Doe pp. 332-343" could be in references but upon actually retrieving that book and reading the referenced text there was absolutely nothing to support the claims given in the wiki-article. Some times the books or articles referenced was not even touching the subject at hand.

Understand that such a system gives rise to a lot of complex issues, but at the same time such a system would give the possibility of improving the quality. One could of course not demand such sources, but at the same time it would be given higher credibility. The fact that something is written in a book is of course also no quality marker in itself in various situations.

Some sort of collaboration with Google Books, Web Archive and/or other similar services? Warumwarum (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Warumwarum: you can reference the page in the work, and use the quote= parameter in citation templates to excerpt a segment of relevant text. Does that solve your issue? Fiddle Faddle 16:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. If you include an ISBN in your reference, this will enable a link to various sources, including (where available) a Google Books preview. As an example, in the article Decibel, go to reference 15 and click on the ISBN number 9780080533865. Then click on "Find this book" alongside "Google Books", and click on the book title when you get there. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. My thought is then typically to have this as a reference: Brian C.J. Moore (1995). Hearing, or even a picture/copy of relevant page. The quote= option is also good. Note that this is not for a specific issue, it is more of a thought/suggestion/question. One problem is of course that even if a service is available, such as quote= or ISBN links, does not mean it is used. One of the powers of direct quoting is that if the paraphrased text is poorly re-written it can easier both be spotted and fixed. Warumwarum (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this will be of interest, Warumwarum, but you might also checkout https://en.wikisource.org/ or http://www.wikibooks.org/. There are a lot of associated wikiprojects that are trying to address some of these problems. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

How to edit the table of contents

I have edited the article on Ely Cathedral and in order to do this satisfactorily I found it necessary to insert a new headed paragraph. "Edit" doesn't seem to bring up the table of contents for editing. How does one do this? 86.152.92.160 (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@86.152.92.160: Welcome to the Teahouse. You don't edit the table of contents - that's generated automatically. What you do is add ==Heading name== where you want the heading to appear. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 19:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources, Popular Opinion and Copyrighted Images.

Hello,

I am currently writing my first Wikipedia article and I have a couple of questions regarding sources and images. First, my article is about a person who is important in the ballet world but all of the facts I've found about her have been from a documentary she was a part of and from forums and fan pages. I think it's a delicate subject, as she has been criticized a lot by ballet enthusiasts and it's known that she isn't in a good place right now, but I don't want to come across as defamatory (I wish her the best in her ballet endeavours). Are those sources good enough? Also, I wanted to add a picture of her but I don't know if any of the pictures available online are permitted. Help?

Thank you!

(Enildapg (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Enildapg, and welcome to the Teahouse. All the articles in Wikipedia need to have reliable, independent sources that significantly cover the subject of the article. You can learn more about what sources are considered reliable here: WP:RELY. Forums and fan pages are obviously not reliable, as those are places where anybody can write anything. Those sources should not be used in Wikipedia. The words of the subject herself (like from the documentary) are called wp:primary sources. They can be used in Wikipedia as a source, but not always and not exclusively. You can learn more about primary sources here: WP:PRIMARY. If the person is controversial, you should be extremely careful to provide wp:Neutral point of view by citing all sides and all opinions. You should also be careful not to misinterpret those opinions, as it would be a violation of the WP:ORIGINAL policy. Wikipedia only accepts freely licensed photos of living persons. You can search for freely licensed photos here: meta:Free image resources, or you can request author of the photo to release it under a free license (see: WP:REQFREE). You should not upload a photo without an evidence of it being released under a free license, as that photo would be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Enildapg. Oksana Skorik isn't notable yet as a ballerina. You need sources other than the film, fans, and blogs. Since she is known for the documentary about the rigors of Russian ballet training which follows her story, write about the film instead and put information about her there. There is newspaper coverage of the film that you can use for sources. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Vanjagenije and StarryGrandma! I already submitted my article for review and I suppose it will be declined since I lack reliable sources and my subject isn't notable enough. I just thought an article about Skorik was overdue because of how much is being said about her lately that doesn't necessarily involve the film. Again, I have to agree with you in that I have no good sources yet. Maybe I'll write about the film. Again, thank you!

(Enildapg (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification after the review process of a submitted article

Hello, I recently submitted two articles to wikipedia the third week in April, and have been checking for comments and suggestions or whether the articles are accepted or will be deleted. I understood the status message that there were thousands of articles pending review and the process will most likely take over a month. Is the best practice to just keep checking my pages? Will I receive any sort of email notification if a submission is accepted or deleted?

I am a new contributor, following the footsteps of a friend who moved away, and more experienced with the process. I welcome feedback and embrace this wonderful collaborative platform. Thank you very much for the information!ArtistInWordyThings (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The review process is not fast, since there are so many articles and so few reviewers. Yes, you will be notified on your talk page when it is reviewed. Many editors have found that asking here at the Teahouse will speed up the process. I will fix your references so they are more visible. (Putting references in articles is very tricky. See User:Yunshui/References for beginners for a good introduction.) StarryGrandma (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the reassurance, StarryGrandma (love your uname!) and I look forward to improving and collaborating as time progresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtistInWordyThings (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The main thing with AFC is always to ensure that more than one reliable source has significant discussion of the subject. Any other problems are probably fixable, but that one would usually mean the articel won't get accepted. See WP:GNG for more details. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

Hotly debated topics for the Rolfing article

Hello! I've been editing for about a month and have learned the most basic ropes. One of the pages I've been working on, Rolfing is a focal point for some very strict editors, some who care about quality sources, neutral tone, etc as is appropriate, and others who seem to be opposed to the topic and perhaps even wish to undermine the constructive progress of this article. My primary focus has been to try to add some higher-quality sources (mostly secondary sources from mainstream publishers) as the page previously had too much reliance on primary sources especially websites. Also I'm attempting to clear up some of the inaccuracies on the page. I'm hoping that you can help me navigate some contested points. I definitely don't want to engage in warring so I need some help in how to handle disagreements wikipedia-style. The most recent example is in the History section: "The method Rolf developed, involving a programme of deep-tissue massages, was originally called Postural Release and later Structural Integration but became known as Rolfing." I removed "involving a programme of deep-tissue massages" which not well-phrased for accuracy and is not needed for the history section as there is a more detailed Theory and Practice section (and I gave this as the reason for the edit). Another editor reverted my deletion with this cryptic comment: (revert POV commentary). Any suggestions on how to proceed? Thank you in advance! Karinpower (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Karinpower. Since Rolfing is a fringe topic that involves medical claims, all edits in this area will be subjected to heightened scrutiny. All edits that discuss medical claims must comply with the very strict standards of WP:MEDRS. So, my advice to you is to edit in careful and strict compliance with our established guidelines on fringe medical topics. I recommend discussing proposed changes on the talk page first, and proceeding only when you have achieved consensus. I will add the article to my watch list and keep an eye on it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328, thanks for your input and your willingness to keep an eye on this page! I'm not debating the fringe status and I appreciate the need for clear, strong sources. Following WP:MEDRS, the studies that have been done have been published in journals that are not mainstream enough to be cited in Wikipedia, so the article relies mostly on secondary sources such as books that summarize a number of types of healing approaches. I have located and added several of these in recent weeks. My complaint is not about being strict about sources - it's about reverts that seem to undermine clear improvements to the article. Did you (or anyone else here) have an opinion about the above example that I mentioned? To me this seems like a straight forward edit that helps the paragraph read better. Thanks again!--Karinpower (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems that there is a campaign to remove mentions of Rolfing being a massage technique. Karinpower, if reliable, independent sources say that it is a type of massage, then so should Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The massage question is a separate issue, and there are a number of sources on each side of that equation - that will require some in-depth work and I hope to delve into that in the future. For the present, I wish to remove this odd little bit of text because it's not relevant to the History section. The sentence reads well without it, and the question of describing Dr. Rolf's method is currently handled better briefly in the intro and then in more detail in the Theory and Practice section. Let me put it a different way. If the article had the history section without that phrase, and then someone added it, wouldn't that seem extraneous? If someone then reverted the change, wouldn't that make sense? Thanks again for your consideration. --Karinpower (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to see how your proposed change doesn't involve the massage issue since the clause you want to remove includes the word "massage", Karinpower. The article's talk page is the place to work on achieving consensus for any specific changes in wording. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

How to find 'watched' pages?

Hi! I know there are ways to easily find pages that other users have reported there being problems with, like a page needing grammatical corrections or more citations, but I just can't seem to figure it out. I'm really sorry to bother you, as I recall being told about this before, but I'm a new user, and am a bit lost right now... Thank you so much for your help!Runnerofwinds (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Runnerofwinds. We are happy to answer your questions. The Community Portal is a good place to find tasks to do. The shortcut to that page is WP:COM. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Runnerofwinds: Wikipedia:Contribution_Team/Backlogs has a links to the categories of articles (hundreds of thousands of them) that are tagged for particular problems. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

Default Sort

A draft I was working on in my sandbox had the template {{DEFAULTSORT:User Marchjuly sandbox "draft title"}} added at the bottom of page before the category tags. Although this draft has been reviewed and moved to the article mainspace, the template is still there. Does it need to be deleted/changed or should it be left as is? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yes, just change it to {{DEFAULTSORT:63rd NHK Cup}} (or whatever). The template determines where the entry will appear, in alphabetical order, in the categories, so if you leave it unchanged, the article will be alphabetized among the U's. If the article were about a person, you'd usually use {{DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Given name}}, for instance, so that the article would be properly alphabetized rather than being alphabetized as Given name Surname (i.e., the article's title, since that's the default). Deor (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Deor

- Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia relevance?

I submitted an article about Carpe Fulgur, a game translation company. The article was rejected, and I understand why. Carpe Fulgur is represented in Wikipedia currently by 7 broken links.

I knew going in that there is a shortage of references for Carpe Fulgur's activities, but I figured having a weak page was better than having seven broken links. I worked hard to create the new page, drawing entirely on information about Carpe Fulgur currently in approved WP pages, and a very small amount of personal knowledge.

There is no more information available about this small but relevant game company. They are doing work worthy of WP reference, but it's really just a couple of hard-working guys without a PR department. I felt readers of their various WP references deserved someone pulling the CF story together and satisfying the links.

Apparently, WP editor disagree. I think you risk losing relevance when you reject good faith attempts to fulfill your broken links.

Jlight88192.55.55.41 (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Jlight88. I'm sorry you've had a frustrating experience, but I'm afraid that notability (in its special Wikipedia sense) is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. In my view, the reason for this is that an article can only any use at all if all the information in it is referenced to reliable sources (and mostly to independent reliable sources): otherwise a reader has no way of verifying the information and checking that it is not mistaken or vandalised. Therefore if there is no information available in reliable sources, it is impossible to write a good, reliable article about it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

How many broken links does WP consider necessary before realizing notability?

jlight88Jlight88 (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Broken links used as a great indicator of notability as there's little to no oversight that goes into their creation. The notability guidelines Colin references above are the whole story. --LukeSurl^{t c} 17:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Jlight88, has this company received any media coverage, either in press that covers startups or those that cover the gaming industry? Notability is mainly established by having secondary or tertiary coverage by reliable sources and if this company is relevant, some gaming or business journalist must have noticed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz, the now deleted draft references a single long media interview with one of the founders. So yes, there is "any". "Much"? Not so much.

Luke, you might want to reconsider the broken link issue. Each one discredits Wikipedia.

Both, I see very tired editors with more time to enforce rules than actually investigate relevant work. If you examine each of the broken links, you will find that they are relevant unanswered questions. If you examine the draft, you will find a single detailed media interview. Fortunately for you, the only ones you will become irrelevant to are young game players: not so important to us older folks.

jlight88Jlight88 (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jlight88. If Wikipedia is becoming "irrelevant", then why does it remain the sixth most popular website in the world, and far and away the most popular in terms of providing free encyclopedic content? Red links are not considered "broken links" but instead are useful indicators that perhaps Wikipedia should have an article about the topic. Note my use of the word "perhaps". The company still needs to be notable by Wikipedia's standards, and we don't disregard core content policies and guidelines just to turn red links blue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Jlight88, I looked at both your registered account and the IP you use and can not find a draft of your article in your Sandbox. I'm not sure if you used a different account when writing it. If your article is at WP:AFC, you can continue to work on it. It is not unusual for an new article to be turned down when it is first submitted. See if the reviewers had any advice and try to address it. If you put the article in the main space of the encyclopedia and it was deleted, ask the admin who deleted the article to "userfy" it, that is, put the content of the article in your userspace where you can continue to improve it. There might be more media coverage in the near future that you could incorporate in the article. Just remember "not now" does not mean "never". This company could very well have more coverage by reliable sources in a month or a year down the road. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz, It's sad that WP has lost my draft. I put a lot of work into it. Finding it again is not the issue. There is no more work to do on it. I have no more information. I sincerely believe that its inclusion in WP would make WP more relevant to a small part of the web. Unfortunately, it is probably a small part of the web that WP cares little about.

When friends found I was going on this Quixotic quest, they laughed because of their own interactions with WP. I now will laugh with them instead of defending WP.

Cullen, I might have found a reference from Encyclopedia Britannica similar to your comment "If Wikipedia is becoming "irrelevant", then why does it remain the sixth most popular website in the world".

jlight88Jlight88 (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is true that a redlink indicates that someone thought there should probably be an article on this subject. Until the company is sufficiently independently documented, though, it won't qualify for one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

Your draft article was not "lost", Jlight88, rather it can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Carpe_Fulgur. It is at risk of deletion by an administator because you have not worked on it for over six months. There are notices about this on your own talk page, which you should read, including repeated links to the draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It was, in fact, deleted, Cullen, as the author had not responded to the warning given on his user talk page more than 2 weeks ago. It was, however, restored in response to his undelete request, so he now needs to edit it again to stop it being deleted again. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Cullen, I tried the arcane process for recovery, but no joy. Liz couldn't find it either. I play computer games for fun, not for WP.

All, Liz is the only one who has treated me well. Everyone else is willing to answer with no knowledge, trumpeting the rules. You guys need to start treating people better. Don't answer because you think someone needs to have the rules repeated to them. That's like a content-less discussion. All of this goes back to the original topic.

Jlight88Jlight88 (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What "arcane process", Jlight88? All you need to do is click once on the link that I gave you above, or click on the same link which has been provided to you several times on your own user talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You're kidding. I was instructed to copy/paste names twice into complex fields. Have you ever done it?

jlight88Jlight88 (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not kidding, Jlight88. I just now clicked on the link I gave you above to be sure that it is still active.The same link is on your talk page several times. Just click the link yourself, and there you will see your article draft, ready for you to make some edits and restart the six month clock. If you don't edit it, then it will be deleted soon. We are all trying to help you here, and your article draft has not yet been deleted. It is up to you to protect it by doing a little bit of work on it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Good grief. How does an article that is not yet ready (yes, I checked and added a review comment to that effect) and would be probably deleted on sight because it does not assert nor give evidence of WP:N turn into a discussion about Wikipedia relevance? Wikipedia is relevant precisely because it does not display, except briefly, articles that just don't pass muster. Now a community consensus could overturn this so that anything that was ever written could step into the limelight, but that would, surely, relegate Wikipedia to be an unverified miscellany site.

The organisation exists, Carpe Fulgur, but it has no evident notability. If anyone wants to create that and accept it into main namespace as an article , more power to their elbows. And that is precisely what the effort should be spent on. Pins do not need angels to dance on their heads. Wikipedia needs good articles. Let's create Wikipedia! Fiddle Faddle 08:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What am I allowed to post on my user page?

I know Wikipedia has strict rules, so I want to know the rules for what I can do on my users page. Jakekimtv (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jakekimtv. Your user page is for you to tell other editors a bit about yourself and your interests and accomplishments as a Wikipedia editor. It can be very brief if you want. Or it can be quite lengthy like mine, since I have been an active editor for almost five years. You have a lot of leeway with your user page but not 100%. Its purpose is to facilitate collaboration with other editors. If its content is disruptive, that would be a problem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Jakekimtv. Once you click on the red link with your name above, the rules on what is allowed are found at Wikipedia:User pages.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Why Is my article going to be deleated

My article Miles-Butler Hughton has been said to be deleate,why?SillyPotatoe (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miles-Butler Hughton - in brief the subject has not received the level of coverage in reliable sources required to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO.--ukexpat (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I created a word that rhymes with orange and tried the Miriam Webster, Oxford dictioary routes with no success. Do you have any suggestions?

I coined a word that rhymes with ORANGE 5 years ago and the Merriam Webster, Oxford routes have not been successful... Do you have any suggestions?70.44.145.190 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikimedia projects are not for newly invented words. I recommend you start a personal website or blog and write about your new word there. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 17:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Lozenge beat you there, or Blorenge. See Words without rhymes which shows that unrhymed words are not as uncommon as they might seem. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

<tangent>I heard an NPR story recently in which they were explaining that all of the apparent not-quite, sort-of rhymes/eye rhymes in Shakespeare's works are perfect rhymes in the pronunciation of the time. Fascinating article (to a word nerd like me).</tangent>--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to identify who contributed what and when to a specific article?

I know that I can use the history page to identify contributions by a specific editor, but is there any way to highlight edits by a specific editor while looking at the article? Biolprof (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Try the WP:WIKIBLAME tool. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Nathan Bedford Forrest

People, Please,

To state that Gen. Forrest was part of "Poorly Co-originated battles", is a mis nomer by all imagination. Tactics at "Brice's Cross roads" are still taught at West Point to this day. To state that "Hunt Morgan", did in more Yankees -26, than all others is again in error. (Had a Great/Great Uncle ride with Morgan -R.S. Clukes Reg.). Forrest shot 31 men and lost 30 horses under him, Said he figured the Yankees owed him a horse.

Please do a little book work work before printing such things. Yes, he had a problem with Braxton Bragg, but who didn't, except Jeff Davis. And after the second raid on Donelson with Gen. S. Lee, He refused to ever serve under him again. Only because it was a waste of men and a useless expedition.

You guys need to check your stuff a little better.

I actually could go down the whole list of his engagements, of which he never lost one until Selma in 1865.

Thank You for your attention to this matter.

Paul - outa Mich.172.5.214.75 (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Paul. Each article including this one has a talk page where improvements to the article can be discussed. You can find the talk page by clicking the tab at the top of that page. That is where you can discuss your concerns, and please be prepared to cite reliable sources such as biographies by historians that back up your proposed changes. As you know , the American Civil War literature is vast, and we need to summarize the range of sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Anybody can edit. You can take your concern to the talk page, as Cullen328 so rightly noted, or you can make the change directly in the article, providing you attribute the source. If you don't know how to do the footnoting, you can put the citation right in the article and somebody will come along and fix it, provided of course that what you added is acceptable. With people like Forrest, though, it is better if you place your concerns on the talk page first. Thanks for writing. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What type of references are necessary when discussing references of topics in media?

A number of articles have a section discussing the usage of that topic in pop culture. So like, let's say it's the article about Leopold and Loeb and you want to include the fact that the movie Annie Hall mentioned Leopold and Loeb. Can you just include the movie as a reference? Or do you have to find an article that says "Annie Hall mentions Leopold and Loeb"? Assuming it's a straight forward mention and not some sort of interpretation of what's going on in the movie. If someone sings a song or reads a poem in a movie, but it's not written up in some secondary source, can I just use the movie as a reference? Bali88 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Bali88. My opinion is that you should not use the move itself as the source. If you want to include a fact in the article (like a fact that the subject was mentioned in a movie), that fact needs to be important. We do not include every fact about the subject in the article, but only the facts that are important enough to be part of encyclopedia. If the subject was mentioned in a movie, but there are no secondary sources discussing it, than it is certainly not an important fact. Citing secondary sources serves as the evidence that the fact is important enough to be included into encyclopedic article. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Bali88. I differ a little from Vanjagenije, we certainly use films as sources for their own content (without interpreting them ourselves). I agree, of course, that we only use significant facts. Whether a mention is significant is a judgement call, and there has been disagreement over the years about the use of "In culture" or "In popular culture" sections. I would suggest that if you consider it significant you go ahead and include it, and if someone thinks otherwise and removes it consider it a "straw in the wind". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

Hello, Bali88 (and others). Welcome to the contentious part of Wikipedia (grin). I disagree with Rich. Vanjagenije sums up our policy quite well. Don't use anything you can't find in a WP:Reliable source. You can't do WP:Original research, which means you can't use anything that hasn't been reported upon by a good SECONDARY source. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The Philosophical Duality of The Definition of a Circle

Many mathematics professors and scholars utilize the definition of a circle as; A POINT REVOLVING AROUND A POINT. This is truth, but it is only half of a duality. I have no reference source as of yet, nevertheless a circle may be equally defined as; THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BETWEEN 2 POINTS WHEREAS THOSE POINTS REMAIN AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE DISTANCE FROM EACH OTHER. In my studies of geometric patterns and such, I know that both definitions need truth. I ask anyone to refute this claim. There are so many Scientist's who dream of being the next icon of the Scientific community that there will be no such person in my mind(too many chiefs and not enough Indians syndrome). I know my edit will not be revised yet. Wikipedia has been here for me on many searches for better understanding and I never want to lose this resource, All I ask is for anyone to challenge these definitions and arrive at your own conclusion, thank-youFridayjunior (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fridayjunior. The Teahouse is a place to ask and answer questions about the procedures for editing Wikipedia. There are plenty of other places to discuss geometry. Good luck to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fridayjunior - the best place for your topic is the Mathematics Reference Desk. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, Fridayjunior, be aware of Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy. Wikipedia is for established fact, verifiable from reliable sources. New ideas and thought should be published elsewhere. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

See response to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#I am a novice to Wikipedia and have a question regarding "the definition of a circle". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

How to add references in page?

How would you add refs to page? Can't seem to do it. FaZeShock (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, FaZeShock and welcome to The Teahouse. After the text for which your reference is a source, put the information we would need to find that reference between "<ref>" and "</ref>". Just as an example, I just added the following to an article:

Feller, Ben (December 17, 1999). "Board OKs Furniture Warehouse Expansion: Furnitureland South Decides Not to Seek Tax Incentives for the Project". Greensboro News & Record. p. B1.

You can use templates, but you don't have to. The URL for this article was one which required a subscription so I decided not to use it, but a URL is a good idea if you have one. Using one of the last articles I added an online source to, this is an example of how: "[http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/washington-monument-reopens-earthquake-23686456 Washington Monument Reopens After Earthquake]". Then near the end of the article, put "{{reflist}}" or <references/> under the heading "==References==". More guidance can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a good resource for new editors who are interested in learning about referencing techniques. It is called Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, an alternative way of adding reference is in the edit tool bar at the top, click Cite at the very right. Click templates and choose your ref type (web, book, journal). Then fill in the blanks and technology will generate the reference for you. Cheers,TheQ Editor (Talk) 00:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Can someone help me distinguish which of these sources are wiki-worthy?

Below are references for this unpublished page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shellambra/sandbox

I'm guessing the Dailynews.com and laweekly.com, which reference Sean Healy (the subject) and one of his events (True Romance Fest) are legitimate sources. What about these others?:

Thanks in advance for your help!

http://www.slashfilm.com/true-romance-festival-taking-place-may-2-3-in-burbank-ca/

http://www.losangeles.com/articles/true-romance-fest-safari-inn-burbank.html

http://uproxx.com/filmdrunk/2014/01/theres-going-true-romance-festival-burbank-year/

http://kearth101.cbslocal.com/2014/05/02/things-to-do-in-los-angeles-this-week-may-2-may-8/

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/entertainment/the-scene/Weekend-Union-Stations-75th-Birthday-Bash-257504181.html

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1229573/news

http://www.gotham-news.com/news/2014/01/27/celebrate-the-20th-anniversary-of-true-romance-at-a-special-screening-party-at-the-s

http://retellity.com/Biz/True-Romance-Fest-Burbank-CA

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/true-romance-fest-is-coming-soon-and-joblocom-will-be-there

http://www.wherevent.com/detail/True-Romance-Fest-True-Romance-Fest

http://www.eyespyla.com/www/thebuzz.nsf/eb528df05c3fc50b8825769d0062b8f5/e82f2988615a0b9385257cae003768bf!OpenDocument

http://baldwinhwqm.soup.io/post/394250864/true-Romance-Festival-Taking-Place-May-2

http://regator.com/p/263084689/theres_going_to_be_a_true_romance_festival/

https://helloreverb.com/share/interest/Sean%20Healy

http://fusicology.com/auto-eNews/currentla.html

http://www.dailynews.com/arts-and-entertainment/20140430/true-romance-fest-among-los-angeles-areas-best-special-movie-screenings-of-the-week

http://www.laweekly.com/2014-05-01/filmtv/true-romance-gets-its-own-fan-festival/

http://www.dailynews.com/arts-and-entertainment/20140504/first-true-romance-festival-in-burbank-proves-that-love-never-dies

Shellambra (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Shellambra to Teahouse! Most of the sources listed are quite reliable especially the local news sources are quite good and many are up-to-date which is a plus. I would stay away sources in which not in detailed. I would recommend reading this to learn more about adding reliable sources to an article. ///EuroCarGT 00:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Shellambra. I am sorry to disagree with EuroCarGT but many of those sources appear to be self-published blogs and other self-published sources. We should be using "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and professional editorial control is something we should be looking for. Both /Film and Uproxx are clearly blogs and are therefore dubious sources. IMDb is a website based on user-submitted content, and is generally acceptable as an external link but not as a reliable source within an article. Please read the section on self-published sources in our guideline on reliable sources. Since your draft article is a biography of a living person, it is essential that you use the highest quality sources. The Daily News, for example, is a tabloid newspaper with a reputation for sensationalism rather than for accuracy and fact checking. I have major doubts about this list, though I haven't checked every single source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

True to what Cullen328 said. To rephrase what I said, the news sites such as the nbclosangeles and cbslocal were the ones I meant to say. The other sources are more tabloid and not reliable as it could be lend towards the opinion of the authors. ///EuroCarGT 01:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

How to cite the same source for multiple parts of an article?

Hello,

Yesterday I made some major edits to the 'Destiny (video game)' article. I had to cite the same source twice. How can I avoid that problem and use the same citation for multiple sources? Also, how do I cite YouTube videos and at what point in the video the information comes from? Routgs (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Routgs. Here's how: the first time you use the reference, replace the first <ref> tag with <ref name="name for reference"> - so, for example, for a publication by James Hawthorne from 1987 you might use <ref name="Hawthorne1978">. When you want to use the reference again, instead of typing out the whole thing, just type <ref name="Hawthorne1978"/> (the / is important!) with no closing </ref>. This will create an additional citation to the same reference. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Routgs: I've moved your second question onto the end of your first one, so that they will stay together in the same section. --ColinFine (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yunshui's answer was extremely helpful, thank you. For the new edit beta, which has simpler editing features, how can you use the same citation for multiple sources? And also, how can you cite YouTube videos using the editing feature as well as the new edit beta feature?

Thank you in advance.

Routgs (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Routgs. I suggest using the Template {{cite video}} to cite a video: it has parameters for all the information you are likely to want to specify. (You still need to put it in <ref> ... </ref> tags). Please be aware that much material on Youtube violates copyright: you should never link to or cite such material. If it is a legitimate posting by, or with the permission of, the copyright holder, then you may link to it; but depending on what kind of video it is, it might count as a primary source, in which case there are restrictions on the kind of information it may be used to support. (I'm not familiar with the beta editing mechanisms, so I hope somebody else can answer that part of you question). --ColinFine (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Routgs, I believe you are referring to the VisualEditor in your last question. To answer your question: Instead of clicking "Cite", click "Insert", then "Reference". Then click "Use an existing reference" at the bottom. This will create a named reference as described above automatically. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Publication Process

Hello,

Thank you for the kind offer of help in having my first article published. This is as far as I've got with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Scott_Hallsworth

I've used the Wikipedia entries of contemporaries/friends of Scott to benchmark the piece so trust it's close to being acceptable. Any and all feedback/advice warmly received.

Thank you,

Subclassic (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)subclassicSubclassic (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Subclassic and welcome to the Teahouse. A quick glance at your draft article tells me that there is still some work to do before this is ready to be reviewed as a potential Wikipedia article. You need to split the article into sections and follow the Wikipedia guidelines on formatting references, then ensure that the references used are reliable sources. Part of the article appears to be in list format and you should consider rewriting this in prose. As this is a biography of a living person there are some other guidelines to be followed.Once these things are done you can submit the draft at articles for creation, although other changes/additions may then be requested by the reviewing editor. Good luck! Philg88 ^♦talk 04:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Subclassic. You still have a lot of work to do. All that stuff about where and when he was born, and cross country running, and rock bands, and working in a Chinese restaurant, and his apprenticeship, and every other factual assertion you make? Every single one of those statements needs to be referenced to a reliable, independent source. And that big, long list of bare URLs? Wow, that's not pretty. If they are there as references to support some factual claims in the article, then they need to be formatted as readable inline citations in the body of the article. As we have 4.5 million articles here, many of which are in relatively poor shape and need to be improved, you should not assume that articles about his friends are at a high standard, or even an acceptable one. You should strive to a high standard, as does he. I recommend that you read A Primer for newcomers and follow its recommendations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Are these pictures usable as a book cover?

Hi, I just created a book on Charles Lloyd (the jazz saxophonist) here. This is my first book, if someone wants to check it out that would be great.

I'm thinking of adding either "File:Charles Lloyd.jpg" or "File:Charles Lloyd, with Reuben Rogers & Eric Harland, Santa Barbara 9-2006, Image by Scott Williams.JPG" (both on commons-I can't link them, else they'll just show up) as the cover image. They both appear to have the same licensing (that is, you can use it as long as it's attributed) so I was wondering if that would mean they're useable in this context. Thanks! Eman235/talk 05:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Eman235, welcome back to the Teahouse. The licenses of the two images are okay. (To be technical, the licensing of the images actually also requires you to release any new work that uses them under the same license. Since they are both Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, it's fine.)

By the way, to link to an image without making it show up, add a colon before the File: prefix, like this: [[:File:Example.jpg]]. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Warning. Several WP editors will remove the attribution from the caption, with the excuse that the credit is given on the photo page itself. The attribution will then not show up in the caption even though the owner of the copyright has licensed it based upon that condition. Sad but true. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Anon -- thanks. GeorgeLouis -- Meaning can I use it, or can't I? Eman235/talk 22:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can still use it, Eman235. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. Eman235/talk 05:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Video Game Articles

When creating a video game article, what sort of information is required, and what information could be illegal or against the rules of Wikipedia to put up? Routgs (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a fairly extensive question - there is some useful guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines that might help, though. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Below the article.

I have noticed that the things at the bottom of an article i.e. sources marked with <ref></ref> can be called many things: References, Notes, Citations etc. Are there some specific guidelines when to use what or is the "naming" decided on a case to case basis? - W.carter (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and one more: In El Grecco there is this really nifty timeline in a collapsible box close to the end of the article. In the "edit text" (what is that called?) I can only see {{Timeline of El Grecco}}. Is this timeline a template, and in that case, how do I get hold of it and use for other articles about artists? - W.carter (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, W.carter! The title "References" for that section is most common, for a couple of reasons: "Notes" usually means footnotes, where the author inserts explanations and personal opinions in small type below the text. Since opinions of the article writer aren't appropriate in an encyclopedia article, you don't see a lot of these; some editors are just used to using the title "Notes" in journal articles or essays and keep using it here. "Citations" is also often not appropriate, because that section could also include some general references as well as citations; the more general term "references covers both of these. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The collapsible box is called a "Navbox" (Navigational box). It's a kind of template. There are currently 68 of these for painters. The list is HERE. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

W.carter was apparently not referring to the navbox Template:El Greco but to a timeline. I don't see {{Timeline of El Grecco}} in the page source and there is no template by that name but I see {{Timeline of El Greco's life}}. That code transcludes Template:Timeline of El Greco's life. When you click the "Edit" tab on a page there is "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page" at the bottom of the window. You can use this feature to click links to the used templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. You were just faster than me with your response. Thanks! - W.carter (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Asking for Feedback

I am learning about writing for Wikipedia. I have drafted an article about the Unique Learner Number, but have been consistently unable to ask for Feedback. The service is reported as currently unavailable. Apologies if I have missed it in the guides, (I confess to have serious time constraints on my personal project) but can you suggest where I am going wrong? Crustyoldfool (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are talking about User:Crustyoldfool/Unique Learner Number? I don't understand what you mean when you say "The service is reported as currently unavailable"; is this a response that you are getting when you try to submit the draft for review by hitting the green button labelled "Submit your draft for review!"? If so, I don't understand the reason for such a response. I would, however, recommend that before you submit it for review you read WP:Your first article, and in particular that you read WP:Referencing for beginners to see how to provide references to published reliable sources for the statements in the article. I'll put some other useful links on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5? As far as I know that doesn't work in the user space. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Resubmitting article

My recent article got deleted. I have resubmitted it. How will I know if it is successfully resubmitted for review? Madhuravp (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are talking about Draft:U. Rajesh, it wasn't deleted, but the submission was rejected because that version of the draft was empty. You haven't resubmitted it since adding some content. To resubmit it you need to click the blue button labelled "Resubmit" in the box at the top of the article. Before doing so, I would recommend that you read WP:Referencing for beginners, to see how to include references for relevant facts in the article. After resubmitting, you'll see a brown box at the foot of the article, confirming that it is awaiting review. I've added some further useful links to your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

How to overcome a Notability issue

I have created and submitted for review a wiki page of Quaid-E-Azam Divisional Public School and College but each time it is declined due to its notability issue, even after i have added the reference from the website www.qpc.edu.pkIrfansarwar2014 (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Irfansarwar2014 and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason your article has been rejected is that it does not contain references citing reliable sources. The qpc website that you mention belongs to the school and is not an independent third party source. Please see this guide for more details. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your answer but in the wiki page of Aitchison College and also in the page of Lawrence College Ghora Gali the references given are also from their website but those articles are there in wikipedia.Irfansarwar2014 (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Such comparisons are not acceptable, please see WP:Other stuff exists. We can look at those articles, but the fact that one article breaks the rules is no reason to allow any others to - we try to bring all articles up to a high standard - we do not want everyone copying the worst. - Arjayay (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Irfansarwar2014. According to long-standing consensus described at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, articles about degree-awarding institutions such as this are almost always kept if there is even a single independent source confirming its existence. This could be an article in a local newspaper or a listing in a college directory. The reference need not be in English. The article can be improved as time goes by. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328 I'd forgotten that consensus. With a world population of 7.163 billion, about 12.5% of secondary school age, assuming 1000 pupils/school gives us about 900,000 secondary school articles - I wonder if we might regret it? - Arjayay (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

As there is no practical limit to the size of the encyclopedia, I would not regret it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for more clarity, it is helping me a lot, just one point more i want to make it clear. Can i add the reference of any book or journal that is written by local author but it is or its link is not available on net.Irfansarwar2014 (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources need not be available online, but thoroughly cite offline sources, and perhaps incorporate a sentence or two quoted from the source. See Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

For a book it is wise to quote the ISBN. If the book has been self-published, or published by a publisher without significant editorial control, it may not be regarded as a reliable source. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)