Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 210

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 205←Archive 208Archive 209Archive 210Archive 211Archive 212→Archive 215

Editing Portal:Current events

Can you please direct me to where I can find details about editing Portal:Current events?

I am particularly interested in seeing a list of the categories used there (;Arts and culture, ;Disasters and accidents etc ) and the procedure for adding to the list.

Over time there appears to be some overlap (E.g. ;Disasters and ;Disaster and accidents)

TIA

ZermattMan (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome ZermattMan to Teahouse! Portal:Current events is fully protected, however the daily current event portal isn't. If you want to edit the daily current event portal, you have to make sure it is highly notable and has a worldwide or mass coverage. You cold learn more at: Portal:Current events/Edit instructions. ///EuroCarGT 01:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

How to Edit Mark

Hey, I was going to edit my user mark (the thing that says Kzorq:Talk) but I forgot where to do it. Can someone tell me where? Kzorq (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kzorq - what you're talking about is your signature. You can change your signature at your preferences page, which is always accessible as a link next to your username at the upper right of every page. Wikipedia:SIGNATURE#Customizing_your_signature provides some good tips for how to change your signature, too. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Userbox Format

Is there some sort of Userbox template available with blank data that just lets you fill in the data in the appropriate sections? Thanks, --Joseph Yanchar (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Joseph Yanchar: Template:Userbox sounds like what you want. The template accepts parameters for images, colors, text, etc., as described in the template doc. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Host picture

How come my host profile picture ever appears on this page even though I have been active here. Is it something to do with the fact that I was renamed several months ago? --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 13:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jakob, the hosts pictures that are set here are randomized, meaning it is a possibility to see your host picture. Personally I've never seen my here as well. ///EuroCarGT 15:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Random? I had no idea they were supposed to be random. Now, I know nothing about templates but it looks to me you only get selected if you are in the top 12 –
"{{Random subpage|page=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured|start=1|end=12|seed=3}}".[1]
It looks like you'll need to elbow your way up the queue! Thincat (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, photos of the most active recent hosts are the ones displayed, but I don't know exactly what the standards are to get on that list. It seems that Jmorgan (WMF) is the Wikimedia Foundation staffer responsible for the function, using a bot named HostBot. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • According to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured it is suppose to be just the newest helpers to the project, but I'm certain that most active was also rolled into it, and I vaguely remember a discussion about that. Either way, J-Mo, HostBot hasn't updated any since April 27th (three weeks now) and based on the edit histories of the subpages it was a weekly thing which makes me wonder if HostBot is dropping the ball here. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 17:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
HostBot is totally dropping the ball, but thanks to your nudge I'll try to push it back onto the rails tomorrow after work :) Cheers, - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 02:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that bad bot needs a spanking. People are getting tired of seeing my picture all the time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Translations

While working on Einar Jolin I came across Erik Boheman. It had a box requesting it should be expanded with text from the Swedish version. It was a short article so I went ahead and did that. Anyway, in the request box there was a note that {{Translated|sv|Erik Boheman}} should be added to the talk page once the translation was included. Done. But now I'm wondering about the other article, Einar Jolin. This article got started by my translation of the Swedish article. I was a bit more ignorant then, so I just translated away! Ok, the article was unreferenced so I had to find it all, the language was ancient, and while working on it I found more facts, so by the end of it is almost rewritten. But the fact remain that it started out as a translation. So, should I put a similar box saying {{Translated|sv|Einar Jolin}} on the talk page of that article as well? It seems right. Right? - W.carter (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse. Yes you are absolutely right! We want to (and are required to) provide attribution. If you wish you can add a note saying which revision was the translation, if it can be clearly identified. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC).
 Done But I have absolutely no idea how or where to put the note about the revision. I know the translation was complete by the 08:08 2 May 2014 version, but where shall I write it? - W.carter (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
@W.carter: Don't worry, I'll add it for you.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Another Notability Question

Hello all,

I recently tried creating an article regarding a France-based production company named Troublemakers that specialises in advertisements, which was turned down for not meeting the criteria in the verification of its notability.

Although I understand that Harvard referenced written works would be more desirable, the visual disciplines in which the company engages is quite young despite being relatively significant in the audiovisual industry and has not yet been the subject of academic study. Nevertheless, I have been able to supply several reliable references from the advertising industry (for example, web magazines such as Motionographer and LBBOnline are considered authorities on the subject).

I understand that it is generally unfair to compare to other articles, but I was prompted to create this Wiki page as some of the subject's peers with which it has previously worked have their own. For example, the Fred & Farid Group are of the same age as Troublemakers and have their own page using very similar references.

Therefore, I am led to believe that the article, although concise, fulfills the requirements of a Wiki entry. Nevertheless, I wish to abide by the imposed regulations as much as possible and if it is lacking in verifiability, I would be more than happy to rectify this. Would there be any possibility of a second opinion or perhaps further details on how to meet said requirements so I can attend to any revisions before attempting another submission?

Thank you for your time.

Sincere regards,

13Charlieboy

13Charlieboy (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I saw the draft of your submission. The draft page has suggestions to improve the article. You can improve the article by imroving references and avoid primary references. You can also work on the details and length of the article and resubmit it. The sources should be verifiable an non primary sources must be used otherwise the article may be considered as promotions or the company may not be considered notable. See the draft page and work as it suggests take your time and then resubmit it.Abhinav0908 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Abhinav,

Thank you for the prompt response. I'll look into it and take my time as suggested. I don't imagine there's a time-limit before these drafts get deleted? I might leave it in a WIP stage and do some more thorough research on the subject.

By the way, after taking some time to read the notability guide, I presume professional blogs and web-based publications satisfy the criteria as verifiable sources? 13Charlieboy (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have any problem regarding submission and creation you can create the article in your sandbox first and then copy and submit it. In that way you can experiment and take your time and get rid of the problems presently mentioned by the reviewer. Regarding the confusion about reliable sources you should read WP:RS it may help you.Abhinav0908 (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

About sources.

Sorry to be such a regular with nothing but questions...I am doing research for a new article about an artist. There are tons of books, newspaper and magazine article, website talk and so on about him, so no trouble getting good material. He has also written a biography. Since he was also a professor, it is meticulously accurate when compared to the other sources, and almost void of any personal oppinions. I know that it must count as a primary source and I am not basing the article on it, but it is a helpful guideline and timeline when sorting out the rest. There are however lots of facts in it that are relevant to the article and could not be mistaken for his own point of view. Such as: "Our second daughter was born 20 February 1957..." accompanied with a photo of the newspaper ad for the daughters birth. Or "I drew this stamp for the postal service in 1962..." with a picture of said stamp with the artist's name on the stamp. And all the photos of posters for his exhibitions giving the exact date and place for them. Surely I can use these facts and refer to the biography. Or? - W.carter (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi W.carter. To boil the rules on sourcing down to their bare bones: yes, you can use an autobiography as a source about its author, but:
  • the information must be uncontroversial (children's birthdates are fine, unsubstatiated claims of acheiving cold fusion in the garage are not), and
  • most of the article must still be sourced to third-party sources.
The full relevant guideline is at WP:SELFSOURCE. Hope that helps, Yunshui 雲水 12:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Though children's birthdates would probably not be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article! --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank You Yunshui! Yes, very helpful indeed. Not to worry, references from the autobiography will not be more than about 1-2% of the references. LOL to your cold fusion answer! - W.carter (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I have a question about company logos. What rules come under this option "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use."?

I know it needs to be low resolution but I'm unsure about the other rules. I don't want to upload it if it's against Wikipedias polices.

Thank you :) Lanaelle007 (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Lanaelle007. To upload any material under the fair use rules, you need to comply with all the points in the Non-free content criteria (which include some on how the image is used in Wikipedia). --ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I will read that now :) Lanaelle007 (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Lanaelle007. The logo should be used only in one main space article, not in drafts, user pages or talk pages. Most commonly, this would be in the article about the company. Occasionally, we may have an article about the logo itself. An example is Circle 7 logo. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328! This is the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campustours and this is the logo http://oi60.tinypic.com/ekkj0j.jpg. Does that look like it fits the guidelines? I was confused when I read something about it being unusable if it's a picture like logo and not just simple text. Lanaelle007 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with the use of that logo in that article only, Lanaelle007. You may want to look at the Wikipedia file pages associated with logos of a few major corporations, to see the correct way to justify the usage. You can access the file page by clicking on the image of the logo. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding Deletions

Hi Everyone, I have complied an article that I have been working on for the last few weeks. I think I have neutral wording, clarity of facts, and all the reliable citations anybody could ever ask for. However, I do not want to get this article deleted and then blocked. Could you guys advise me on how to make sure that doesn't happen? IS there a last minute checklist or a place I could submit the article for review? JSOR11 JSOR11 (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse! You could put it at User:JSOR11/Sandbox and then add {{subst:submit}} at the top of it to submit it to AfC?
There's a checklist of sorts at WP:Your first article I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. As mentioned above, you can safely store your draft in your "userspace" where unless it is libellous or a copyright infringement it is unlikely to be deleted. Additionally, you can create a Draft at Draft:Your article name here. Feel free to ask any questions here that might help you with the creation process. Cheers --LukeSurl t c 19:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, JSOR11! You can put the article in the wp:draft namespace, and tell us to review it. And you should not be afraid that you'll be blocked. Nobody is ever blocked just because his article is deleted. Creating bad articles is not reason for blocking. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

How to...

How do you make a userbox on your userpage? Spyro2760 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I just must be a real noob at coding,(I still don't understand what all I have to copy, because I tried to do it, and it turned out wrong).


Hello, Spyro2760, and welcome to the Teahouse! A guided procedure on how to make your own userbox can be found at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Constructing a userbox, or, alternately, you can often find a pre-existing userbox matching your personal description somewhere at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Gallery. Simply paste a template on your own userpage when editing, and you ought to be good to go. Let me know if you need any more help, best of luck, cheers! ~Helicopter Llama~ 21:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Alternately, when I find something cool that I want on my userpage or in another article, I click edit on the article I found it on and then copy and paste it on my own, then just edit the information accordingly. :-) Bali88 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Bible Reference

How would I go about Bible references in an article? Thanks, --Joseph Yanchar (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Joseph Yanchar. Here are my opinions on the matter: First of all, the Bible is not a reliable source for anything except what the Bible itself says. In other words, the Bible can be cited in an article about a Biblical or religious topic only to establish what the text says, not to state or imply in Wikipedia's voice that the matter is true because the Bible says so. The verses should be cited in the body of the article, rather than as references. Our article Bible citation does a good job describing the style. Use a widely respected Bible translation, and if the topic is specific to a religious denomination, use a current translation used by that denomination. For example, I am a Jew, and if writing about a Jewish topic, I would use a translation by the Jewish Publication Society, the most widely respected Jewish translators of Hebrew scripture into English. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Cullen, I disagree slightly. The bible is an important ancient text and most reputable scholars think that some of the events and people in it were based on actual events and people. The problem is separating what actually happened from what was written. But this isn't a problem just with the bible. It's essentially a problem with ANY ancient text. I've been reading Plutarch and other ancient historians a bit recently and they all exaggerate and make stuff up. They will say "Alexander was fathered by the Gods" as if it was a statement of fact rather than a story told about him. To cite a specific example, most bible scholars think there WAS a historical person named Jesus. Even though for the most part the Bible (and heretical gospels that never made it to the bible) are the only documentation we have of Jesus's life. The issue always comes down to separating fact from fiction and there are techniques scholars use to do that. E.g., the Messiah was prophesized to be born in Bethlehem so when some gospels say that is where Jesus was born we are skeptical of them. When on the other hand gospels say he was known as "Jesus of Nazareth" that is usually considered a true statement and to reflect where the historical Jesus actually was born. Nazareth was a one donkey down and there was nothing to be gained by saying Jesus came from there so since several gospels and apocryphal gospels do say that it's taken as something that is probably true. The book Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman is a good intro to this issue about the historical Jesus as well as the general issue of how scholars deal with the fact that all ancient authors lied and exaggerated. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there a possibility that the user was questioning how to insert Bible quote references, e.g. Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 1? Thanks, Matty.007 13:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I suspect Matty is correct in what the user is asking. To address the other two answers: I'm not going to tackle whether the bible has any literal truth, but if you were planning to use the bible as any sort of reference outside of referencing what is contained in the bible, you should take Cullen's advice, otherwise it is likely to be reverted. :-) Bali88 (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course, MadScientistX11, some of the people and events described especially in the latter books of the Bible are certain to have existed and the group of books we call the Bible is one of the most important of many texts that historians use when writing about those times. But when writing about , for example, Roman rule of the eastern Mediterranean 2000 years ago, we should rely on the work of modern academic historians as opposed to considering the Bible a reliable source. It is a primary source that needs to be analyzed and interpreted by scholars. And, even in articles about religious doctrines and observances, it is OK to mention relevant Bible verses. But the references should be mainstream modern sources, and the content must be written from the neutral point of view. So, I will stand by the advice I gave above. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Everyone, and especially Cullen328, my intention with citing the Bible was for presenting Judaic-Christian opinions and points of view on an abstract topic in an encyclopedic manner with a NPOV. You can rest assured. And also, MadScientistX11, even though these shouldn't be presented as fact in an encyclopedia, it would be best for you to keep in mind and respect that many people across the world believe that the religious, God-related aspects of the Bible are indeed fact, thus, it might not be best for you to refer to the religious parts of the Bible as mere "fiction." These aspects aren't proven, but are held as truth by many. All the best, --Joseph Yanchar (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't care how many people believe something. That has no bearing on whether it's true and I have no qualms about insulting people who believe things that IMO are clearly false. I won't go out of my way to insult them but I certainly won't worry about insulting them as I express my opinions. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
MadScientistX11, I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia's page on civility. Your comments on bearing on truth clearly seem to say that the Bible has been proven beyond a doubt to be inaccurate. A., that is not true, and B., such a statement does not sustain a NPOV. --Joseph Yanchar (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you are the one that needs to review the guidelines. This page does not adhere to the same standards as an article. In Talk pages or forums people are free to express opinions. That is one way we reach consensus: by the free and open exchange of ideas and we can't do that if we need to hold back ideas because we are afraid of offending someone. It's one thing to say we should be civil it's another to say that its uncivil to express a certain opinion (no matter how backed up by facts it is) because it might offend someone. Actually I find it ironic that the opinion I originally stated always gets me flamed by many Atheists because they think none of the bible can be taken to support the hypothesis that Jesus as an historical person existed and I think that's clearly wrong by the standards of the best scholars in the field. But I've veered way off topic and that is the last I'll say on the subject. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Joseph. There is a very nice template for Bible verse references which formats the citation and includes a link to the online verse source of your choice. See Template:Bibleverse. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
MadScientistX11, a., this is not a normal forum or discussion page, it is meant for answering editors' questions, not for claiming that religious beliefs are untrue, and b., there are no "facts" firmly damning the truth of the Bible.

Civility is one of the pillars of Wikipedia which applies everywhere on this project. Here at the Teahouse, we have if anything a heightened expectation of civility that in my view ought to go beyond the minimum standards of civility to graciousness. New editors come here, often bewildered by our complicated policies, guidelines and cultural norms. It is up to experienced editors to greet them, welcome them, and explain how things ought to work here in the most gentle and most simple fashion possible.

Any editor planning on adding a Bible verse to an article not directly related to Judeo-Christian religious teachings and observances should understand that verses from the sacred literature of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and all other significant religions as well as atheist thinkers should also be added, as that is the only way that the neutral point of view can be maintained. That requires a deep understanding of the challenges of presenting comparative religion in a neutral way. This content must be written with great care and sensitivity. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I Agree with Cullen. Civility is expected in all corners of wikipedia. Let's just cool off and move on. :-) Bali88 (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Appropriate referencing of a WP article

This is perhaps a naive question, but I am still learning so would appreciate if you could assist. I am looking at improving the article for James_W._Moseley. In particular, I want to explain that his early life was unusual because of the outspoken racist and anti-semitic views of his father, George_Van_Horn_Moseley.

Obviously I can't just say that his father was a racist without references, but the article about his father spends a couple of pages (supported by good references) making that very point. So my question is: is there a good way to refer to the father's WP article, rather than try to reproduce all that detail which is not warranted for the son's article? Gronk Oz (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It's usually taboo to reference another Wikipedia article. Is there a single reference at his father's article that gives a broad coverage of his racist view without necessarily going into a lot of detail that we can use in the son's article? Also, are there references that say that the sons life was unusual because of his father's views? This latter point is to avoid running afoul of WP:No original research. Hope this helps. Chris857 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Gronk Oz! Other Wikipedia article should never be used as a source. That would be contrary to the WP:CIRCULAR policy. You can use the same sources that are used in the article about his father. But, watch out not to make an wp:original research. If the sources do not implicitly call him a "racist", you should not use that wording. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for those responses - they're all good points. Especially the one about having a reference to show the relevance of his father's behaviour on the son: that will be tricky, so I might end up leaving the whole lot out until I can source that. --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Biography update

Hi. I'm fairly new to editing. I recently updated a biography User:Mpa2014/Richard R. Pieper. What's the next step? Who reviews the revisions? Is the biography acceptatable? Mpa2014 (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the {{userspace draft}} template to your draft. This gives a submit button to allow you to submit it for review if you are ready to do that. One further change which would improve the draft before you submit it, and thus improve its chance of being reviewed more quickly, would be to address the bare urls in the references; I would advise using an appropriate citation template for each reference, filling in any available information. I have added a few further useful links to your user talk page. I took the liberty of changing the url in your question to a wikilink. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I will work on the bare urls. Another question for you regarding the categories at the end of the biography, are they visible by default or is this another opportunity to improve the biography by editors?Mpa2014 (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

When the article is accepted and moved back into mainspace, the links to the categories will be changed by removing the preceding semi-colons, so (for example) [[:Category:American businesspeople]] will become [[Category:American businesspeople]]. That would then mean that your article would be listed at Category:American businesspeople. Drafts aren't listed in categories, which is why for the time being the semi-colon is there to make it a link rather than including the draft in the category. If you believe that the list of categories ought to be improved, you could do that. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Again my thanks. A link to another Wikipedia page is not a bare url, correct?Mpa2014 (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Correct. A link to another Wikipedia page is not acceptable as a reference, for the reasons outlined at WP:Circular. Wikilinks can be included as appropriate within the article text, or (again where appropriate) in the "See also" section. The url of a Wikipedia page would not be appropriate anywhere in an article. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
To add to the excellent advice given by David Biddulph above, content categories should only be active and "live" on main space encyclopedia articles. Some readers use categories to research broad topics, and we don't want them to encounter drafts that are "not ready for prime time". On another matter, I am unsure whether this person meets our notability guidelines. This will be easier to evaluate once the bare URLs are filled out into complete references. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Improving rejected article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Kuniholm Pauper

Hello, Im trying to improve a rejected article I wrote that was recently rejected for references. The artist Im writing about has been exhibited in several museums and has been written about in local newspapers and included in a few catalogs. Will these references, properly cited, be enough to support the article? 1stArtHistorian (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 1stArtHistorian. Your draft completely lacks inline references. Please follow the procedures described at Referencing for beginners. In addition, the draft article needs to be completely rewritten in a neutral encyclopedic style. Currently, it is filled with the jargon of art criticism, which is not appropriate to express in Wikipedia's voice. You need to adopt a "just the facts, ma'am, just the facts" style of writing. Any evaluative statements should be either direct quotations or paraphrases, cited as the opinions of expert art critics instead of expressed as statements of fact, unless you can show that you are summarizing the uncontested consensus of a broad range of reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks Cull, I'll be resubmitting with references and tone down the jargon.1stArtHistorian (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Help for my sandbox article

Hello. I received a message to make some edits to my sandbox article. No specifics were given. Can someone please help guide me to the edits, if any, so we can move the sandbox article forward in a positive manner? I appreciate your help. Thanks. Charles M Wright (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've put some useful links onto your user talk page, including Your first article, Notability, and Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Charles M Wright. Your draft article about an art gallery shows a lot of signs of original research, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. By that, I mean that the writing style is characteristic of someone who has deep personal familiarity with the topic. A Wikipedia article should be written from the neutral point of view, with no sense of a personal connection by the writer with the topic. Any factual assertion you make about this art gallery should be backed up by a citation to a reliable source. Please rewrite the draft, keeping in mind these core policies and guidelines, before submitting the draft for approval. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Help for a new editor

Greetings, folks! This is a somewhat unusual usage for the teahouse, I hope you don't mind. Billy choi (talk · contribs) is having some trouble getting started here. He has created a couple of new articles and seems to be knowledgeable about the topic, but seems to be struggling with a number of policy-related issues and collaboration. I will invite him to post here, and would appreciate any assistance in getting him headed in the right direction. VQuakr (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi @VQuakr:! It's a great idea inviting him to the Teahouse. I would suggest you create a Host Profile here. I can see you are a very experienced user and the Teahouse could use a wikipedian like you. Cheers, TheQ Editor (Talk) 19:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a moment ago, I got a message. "Nomination of Diagrammatology for deletion"

It's sad, indeed. I guess I'm like without hope.

So, I was asked politely. "Thank you! I much rather insufficient. And I did my best. But It's not enough. Please delete my stuff forever. I'll try again later. I will study hard to Wikipedia."

I appreciate your interest. Billy choi (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe there is a language issue that is all but impossible to overcome. We do have Wikipedias for other languages, please contribute to the one that you are most comfortable with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Finding articles to edit

Hi

How do I go about finding articles that need editing? When I first signed up there was a bar at the top of my screen that said something like "Find an article to edit" but it is no longer there. Please help?

Thank you!stephven 11:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephven (talk • contribs)

Hello! Great that you're enthusiastic to help! Do you have interests in any particular topics? Do you want to do a few big upgrades to a few articles, or lots of little tweaks and fixes to many? If you go to the Wikipedia:Community_portal you can see a section entitled "Help out" which lists 9 different ways you can help, with links to articles that need such help. Happy editing! --LukeSurl t c 11:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like the feature described at Wikipedia:GettingStarted. You should get it back by manually adding ?gettingStartedReturn=true to the end of a url, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makashule_Gana?gettingStartedReturn=true. If you click "Edit a suggested article" there then you get a bar at the top. But Wikipedia:Community portal is probably a better place now. It's linked under "Interaction" in the left pane. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, guys! Help much appreciated. stephven 13:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephven (talk • contribs)

My page is getting deleted

I am trying to create a page about my company but it is getting deleted.help me with his Avanishiitr (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia editors keep an eye on new pages being created. As you have seen, the article you have created has been deleted because it did not prove the subject was "notable" according to Wikipedia's criteria. Now, Wikipedia does not aim to have a page on every business that has ever existed (you wouldn't expect to see one about the burger shop down my street), and we do not simply wish to catalogue all information. Unlike well-known entities such as HSBC, McDonalds or Ford Motors, no general-purpose encylopedia in history has every had an article on this specific company. So, therefore, for a page on this specific company can exist, a reviewer need to be convinced that the company is "notable" enough to devote a page in the encylopedia to it.
We have specific guidelines for the notability of companies. As a rule of thumb Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Generally this is to be proved by the references used in the draft, we need to see evidence that major publications consider the company important enough to talk about. This does not include press releases (which are not independent), and mainstream media carries a lot more weight on the significant coverage criterion than niche industry magazines etc.
By design of these strict criteria, most companies will not be considered "notable". If that is the case no amount of editing of a draft can change this.
Additionally as you are an employee of this company, please read our conflict-of-interest guidelines before proceeding. Wikipedia does not want to be a platform for promoting or publicising companies, creating or maintaining a Wikipedia article should not be part of any company's "social media strategy", and attempts to use it as such are strongly discouraged.
If you use the articles for creation workspace, your draft article will be saved out of the main area of the enyclopedia. It is unlikely to be then deleted, even if it is not yet a suitable article. Draft articles can be "promoted" to main articles if a reviewer is satisfied the subject is notable and the draft is ready. --LukeSurl t c 13:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference error

On the article I'm working on (Work (Iggy Azalea song)#Release history), the ref keeps making a space and going to the next line, and I have no idea why! Could someone please help or explain this to me? Thanks—CoolMarc 11:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I played around with it a bit and noticed if you put the <ref name="Remix Single"/> on the same line as the date it doesn't drop down to the next line. For example |rowspan="2"| 23 July 2013<ref name="Remix Single"/> Hope that helps! Whispering 13:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a million!—CoolMarc 13:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

How to create a fact-based company page

I would like to provide information to Wikipedia about a UK manufacturing company. It will be a simple listing with factual information about what the company manufactures and the patented technology it has developed. Please can you tell me how to do this? Thank you 2.125.113.222 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Factual informaion can be provided by reliable sources. Read WP:RS and provide reliable resources to each claim you make about the company. If this is your first article on Wikipedia you should also read WP:YFA. The company you are writing about should be notable, reading WP:ORG should help you out on this. Gather all the references and include them in your article before you submit it.Abhinav0908 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

How do I demonstrate a subject's notability?

I recently submitted an article for creation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Unrest_(video_game) I feel that I have used an adequate number of references (7 gaming news site articles) to show notability, but the wp editor that reviewed it disagreed and rejected it. I have seen several published wikipedia articles on indie games with fewer sources and much shorter than what I have written. I would appreciate if someone could take a look at the article and offer some input as to how I can improve it. Or should I just wait until the game is released as the editor suggested? Devetter (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, yes, I definitely think the subject meets WP:GNG. Let me see what I can do. --NeilN talk to me 16:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I have accepted the article, since I found it to be notable and reliably sourced. (t) Josve05a (c) 16:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there a policy for "stashing" references for a future editor of a red-linked article?

I was doing a bit of researched on the recently deceased Robert Erburu, 83, American newspaper executive and philanthropist, President, CEO and Chairman of the Times Mirror, and found he had been added to Deaths in 2014: May 11. I was not interested in writing the article but I thought two references would be especially helpful if someone decided to write. I figured they could delete the extra references after they used them in the article so I added them but they were speedily deleted with Twinkle as "References do not add anything to the entry, one is sufficient." Is there a policy for "stashing" references for a future editor of a red-linked article? Fettlemap (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Fettlemap. The article you are adding to is a list article, so one reference is enough provided that it is to a reliable source. There's a talk page, though; you could put a note there with the references. Alternately, you could leave a note about it at an appropriate Wikiproject. You might also add something on the talk page of the Times Mirror article —Anne Delong (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
@Fettlemap: -- another option is to create a placeholder-type article in the "draft" namespace. There is no guarantee that a future editor would check the draft namespace while writing their article, but it's an approach I have used before when I've collected references for an article and then lost interest. (See Draft:Rats in Boston for one place I did this.) The draft namespace is new and does not have firm rules about what goes there, and in my opinion this is a fine use of it. Probably the best way to go about this would be to write a one-sentence bio at Robert Erburu and leave the references as bullet points at the bottom. This wouldn't take much effort, is probably sufficient to avoid deletion, and makes sure that future editors notice the good references that you have found. An example of a similar approach I have used before: [2] Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I always learn something and often hear about options when something seems like a deadend. Fettlemap (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Its also common to stash references on talk pages of related pages if you cannot complete a new page with a reasonable amount of content. Its been helpful in quite a few cases when someone comes along (even years later) to improve the article - provided it is in a logical spot. That or make a sandbox with a name and it could be found via index, this includes the draft space as mentioned before. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Chris, Thanks for more ideas. Fettlemap (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Template that Contains Error

Hello, folks. Maybe I need a little extra sleep to find this. But right now, I have a template I created that has an error that I just cannot find. The template is called Template:CLA Player Stats. I used it in an article I wrote about lacrosse player Cory Vitarelli. The problem is that in season13, the PIM field displays as blank. However, the total PIM of the column includes the total of 12 which is entered on Cory's template. So, that number 12 is in there somewhere, but it won't show. It also affects the PIM/GP column of the table which is calculated. So, the 12 goes to one place but not the other. I tested all 25 seasons which is the maximum size of the template. This cell is the only one on the table with a bug. I also tried inputting values other than 12. The error doesn't go away. Somebody good with templates who has a fresh set of eyes will probably spot the problem in a split second after my efforts of looking at it dozens of times have proven fruitless. Thank you in advance to anyone who takes on this task. Taxman1913 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know quite what was the problem with your template, but removing the blank line after the season 13 data in Cory Vitarelli looks as if it displays OK. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I now see that I was mistaken there, and that you had changed the template while I was looking at the article, & presumably it was your change that cured the problem. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't even trying to do that. It was just dumb luck messing around with the template. Thanks so much for taking a look. Taxman1913 (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, David, when I look at the revision history, it was you who fixed it, not me. Thanks again. Taxman1913 (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Your version displays OK. It is possible that when you were changing the template you didn't see the effect immediately, because sometimes the previous version is cached and needs purging. All adds to the confusion.  :-( - David Biddulph (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Edited/Created 2 Pages that have been combined by a new pages editor...why?

Hey all - I'm a big fan of Hip-Hop and noticed that a few pages of labels I liked could be updated. I added a Babygrande Records discography page because it seemed to be more organized to have the discography page separate from the label's main page. Tonight, the user G S Palmer merged the two pages. I also created iHipHop Distribution and the discography page for iHipHop Distribution. This was merged as well.

I'm curious as to why this happened. On pages for similar record labels of similar size (like the Definitive Jux page), there are separate discography pages from the label's main wiki page.

Just curious as to why the above were merged. Regardless, I'm new to this process so forgive me if the above questions have obvious answers.

Thanks in advance and look forward to more Wiki activity.DayLaborer (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DayLaborer. There is one editor who can best explain the reasons, and that is G S Palmer. I encourage you to leave a friendly note on that editor's talk page, and my guess is that you will get an answer. Or perhaps G S Palmer will join this conversation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Cullen328. The funny thing is, I had already noticed this thread, but wasn't going to drop in unless asked.
DayLaborer, the reason I merged the pages was because I thought that there wasn't quite enough material to warrant separate pages for the discography(s). However, at least for Babygrande Records, what with their extensive discography, I'm willing to accept that I may have been wrong, in which case you could undo the merge. I will point out that the article looks a little bit sparse without it, though, and doesn't have many sources. G S Palmer (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback Cullen 328 and G S Palmer. I'll mull it over but I think it might be reasonable to undo the merge and then add more sources to make it more justified. Appreciate the quick feedback! DayLaborer (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Defining a reference

I don't know how to define a reference. In the Haskell Indian Nations University article I have added to the Time Line an entry at 1889-90. The reference should read: Donald F. Nelson, "To the Stars over Rough Roads: The Life of Andrew Atchison, Teacher and Missionary," Chap. 4 (TidePool Press, 2008).Dfnelson (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dfnelson, and welcome to The Teahouse. I have fixed the reference for you. You need to use the form <ref name="name"> rather than <ref name=Name"/> when you define a reference. Then you put the reference after the first "ref" and follow it with "</ref>". There is more information at WP:Citing sources.
One more thing: if you are Donald Nelson, you should read about conflict of interest. Your edit may in fact be fine, but putting in something from your own work may be viewed as a potential problem by others.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Review request

Hi, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and would like a little help reviewing my most recent submission. It was just declined this morning, and I've since spoken with the editor and made revisions based on his/her suggestions. I will be resubmitting it, but would love to get additional feedback before I do so. Any suggestions you have for editing would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/HZO CosettejCosettej (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cosettej and welcome to the Teahouse. At first glance it appears that you need to add more internal links to your article to establish context. I will take a more in-depth look tomorrow and get back to you.  Philg88 ♦talk 19:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Philg88 thanks for your help! I'll go add in a few internal Wiki links for now. Looking forward to your additional feedback! Cosettej (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cosettej, and welcome again! I had helped you a bit there and attempted to wikify it. Something else I would suggest you do is add a infobox, potentially Infobox company or Infobox Organization. Cheers, TheQ Editor (Talk) 21:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and revisions, TheQ Editor! I'll add a company info box CosettejCosettej (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Need help unblocking my account

I have tried to create a wiki page on a subject but it has been blocked. However, for reasons i do not clearly understand, my case is pending. I do not have a number or anything to base that on.

I need help figuring out who to get in touch with and how to contact them to understand where our case is and where it’s being held up.

Immediate assistance will be much appreciated.

91.75.37.62 (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Please say which page you are talking about.--Charles (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, 91.75.37.62. As Charles says, there's little we can say if you don't tell us the page involved. I can make a couple of guesses from what you have said (but my guesses might be wrong). Accounts only get blocked for persistent disruptive editing; articles do not get blocked. My guess is that the article you wrote has been nominated for deletion: there are three different processes for this, depending on how uncontroversial the person proposing deletion thinks the case is; but whichever is used, there should be a notice on the page giving the reason, and some links to what that reason means. In any of them, there is a way for you to contest the deletion, and the message on the page should tell you what that is. See Deletion for in-depth information about how these mechanisms work.
One other thing: you talk about "our case": that rings alarm bells for me (again, my guess might be wrong). That suggests that you are part of a company or organisation and are trying to create a page about that company or organisation. If this is so, please read conflict of interest, to understand why you are discouraged from doing so. --ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, IP editors cannot create pages; to do so, you must either create an account or go through the WP:AfC process. 107.219.151.20 (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC) (former User:Ansh666)

How do I create a category?

How do I create a category, and can I even do that? I have archived my talk page by myself and not by a bot, and I feel like putting them in a category. Is there any way I can do this? --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! 09:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. The guide at Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating_category_pages should be useful. Its actually quite a similar process to creating a new article. --LukeSurl t c 10:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
You can also see your user talk subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:Nahnah4/. The code {{Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:Nahnah4/}} displays them like below. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Please do not create a category solely for your user pages. Categories are a navigational tool to organize article content and Wikipedia pages, not user pages. Please read WP:USERNOCAT. Liz Read! Talk! 12:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: But not all the pages there are the one I want. Nevermind now, since I don't feel like doing one anymore. --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! 07:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits made to any content are updated immediately or have a review process?

Once a reader makes any edit to existing content on some page of Wikipedia, will the edits made be updated immediately or will they be reviewed by the content creator or the volunteer editorial team of WikipediaCherrypickbox (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi and Welcome to the Teahouse. Of course, a user can change a page whenever he wants to add content or correct somthing he feels wrong, except in extreme cases where some pages are protected due to Vandalism. Zince34' 10:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cherrypickbox. Usually, edits will show up immediately, as soon as they are saved. There are two exceptions to this:
  • If the page is under pending changes protection and the user making the addition is not autoconfirmed (i.e. has not yet been around for a few days and made some previous edits), then the edit will be invisible to logged out users until it is approved by a reviewer.
  • More often, if another editor changes the page before the edit you are making is saved, then you'll get an edit conflict; your edits won't necessarily be saved unless you redo them.
Generally, though, changes you make should show up instantly - if they do not, try refreshing your browser cache. Yunshui 雲水 10:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
If, rather than an edit to an existing article, you are referring to your userspace draft at User:Cherrypickbox/sandbox, changes which you make will be visible immediately to anyone looking at that page, but the page will not usually be seen by search engines (either within Wikipedia or outside). If you wanted the draft to be reviewed with the intention of it becoming an article in the mainspace of Wikipedia itself, you would submit it for review by hitting the submit button which was provided by the {{User sandbox}} tag which you chose to remove in this edit this morning. If you put that tag back in, it will give you the opportunity to submit the draft for review when it is ready. It would, however, be pointless to submit it in its present state because it is not supported by any references to reliable sources independent of the subject. References to the company's own website are not reliable sources in this context, so you have not demonstrated the subject's notability. I have added a few links to your user talk page, including in respect of your username and potential conflict of interest. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Trying to create a new page for a musician that has the same name as existing page

I thought that my first foray into Wikipedia was going to be easy, but I it looks like I'm in trouble right out of the gate. The musician Jon Neufeld, who has performed with several bands, including Black Prairie, does not yet have a page. There is, however, already a page for a Jon Neufeld. They both go by Jon Neufeld, no initials, no Jonathan, so I think that the naming conventions say the Jon should be used. The problem is that they are both musicians, both play guitar and sing, and both have current careers as musicians. To make it more confusing, the existing one is from Canada, but he just moved to Portland, Oregon, where the one I want to add has lived for 15 years.

I guess my main question is how to name the new article. I have a feeling that the right thing to do would be to create a disambiguation page which specifies them by the band they're in. To be honest, this has gone from creating a little bio page that I knew I was going to have to work just to make it passable by wiki standards to a few more things than I think I should be messing with in my first week as a Wiki editor.

Other than working on my sources for the new article, what should my next step be? What should I name it?

Thanks.

Joustbird (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Jon Neufeld (Black Prairie) would work. If you know his year of birth and it is different than the other Jon, you could replace that in the parenthesis. Don't worry about it too much, because moving a page later isn't difficult if a better name is found. VQuakr (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much.

Joustbird (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Joustbird! That is a bizarre set of coincidences, for sure. I am also a relatively new editor, so please feel free to treat my comment accordingly - I would be reluctant to use the band's name to identify the musician, because most musicians play in multiple bands, or perform solo, at different times during their careers. Without knowing the people involved, I can't make a better suggestion though. There may not be a perfect solution, in which case the editor (you) can choose. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor with one sided view

Hi!

I am trying to improve the article on the Wester Shugden Society (WSS) but I have experienced one editor is deleting sections to make the article very one-sided.

Personally I am pro the WSS, but I am happy to have a neutral article. However, it looks like one of the other editors is intent on presenting the WSS in a very negative light.

How can we resolve this issue without getting into an edit war?

Thanks very much,

Jangdom Kjangdom (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Convenience link (as poster misspelled the title) Western Shugden Society - Arjayay (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed: declined

Hello, I recently made a page about my music, and while I know this isn't good practice, no one else will be making a page. I am a professional Electronic musician and I felt it was good to make a wiki regarding my music. Please could you review? It says that the sources must be notable, but I'm afraid I have not 'hit it big' and not everyone does or wants to, I am gaining good momentum though. Please have a look. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Almark. - SynthoElectro (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has been reviewed, and there is feedback in the box at the top of the draft, including a link to Wikipedia:Notability (music). If you are trying to write about yourself, you shouldn't do so, for reasons explained at WP:Autobiography, WP:Conflict of interest, and WP:Neutral point of view. If at some stage in the future you meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, someone will probably write about you. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the tea-house. Unfortunately, if you have not "hit it big" then it is almost certainly Too soon for an article, whether it is written by you, or someone else.
All articles require significant overage, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability and you will have to wait until you have that significant, reliable, independent coverage. Arjayay (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, it is not a platform for promotion of up-and-coming music acts. We don't want to have articles on every musician who ever lived, so that is why we have the "notability" criteria which your reviewer directed you to. I wish you all the best for your musical career, but until your music is "notable" according to Wikipedia criteria (for most artists this means having a charting release) a page cannot exist. We do not create pages in anticipate of future success. Until such "notability" happens there's nothing you can really do on Wikipedia to make an article exist - this is known as the AKON rule.
Additionally we generally discourage people from writing articles about themselves, for reasons of neutrality (see WP:Autobiography).
--LukeSurl t c 16:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_210&oldid=1138265238"