Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 224

Archive 220

←

Archive 222

Archive 223

Archive 224

Archive 225

Archive 226

→

Archive 230

How do I request a Draft review to be based on verifiability and WP:CALC?

I keep getting reviewers that are arbitrarily rejecting my draft because they do not understand verifiability and WP:CALC

Is it possible to request a reviewer that understands verifiability and WP:CALC?

The draft is here: Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source

Matthewhburch (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Matthewhburch. In my opinion, your article in its current form does not convincingly establish that the specific discrete topic is notable. I see no issues pertaining to routine calculations, although the issue of original research and synthesis may be a problem for reviewers. When you delete the assessments of previous reviewers from your draft, it makes it difficult for new reviewers to understand the history. And when you state you will do the same in the future, that makes it far less likely that someone will volunteer to review your submission. I have not heard complaints that our AfC reviewers do not understand verifiability. This is a collaborative project, and a collaborative attitude goes a long way here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you for your response, Cullen328, but unless you can provide a Wiki rule indicating that I must allow clutter to build on my article page, do not restore the comments and notices I have removed. That having been said, Everything in that article is verifiable, and the routine calculations prove it's inherent notability. If you have a specific example of something that is not verifiable, or question any part of the math which defines the article as notable due to the efficiency potential, then please address what you question in an actionable, specific manner. Matthewhburch (talk) 04:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability in Wikipedia terms is established by significant coverage of the specific topic in reliable, independent sources. It is not established in any way, shape or form by calculations. So, my actionable request is to point to the specific reliable sources that discuss the specific topic of your draft article in detail, Matthewhburch. I won't restore anything to your draft, but what you call "clutter", many experienced editors would call "useful information about the review history of a draft article". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328:Please note in WP:NOTE: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity" Verifiable data and routine calculations demonstrating a clear advantage of one method over another is notable. The specific reliable sources that discuss the specific topic are already there, because a method is a combination of technologies. The rest is math. Math is believed (by most people anyway) to be verifiable as well. Matthewhburch (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Matthewhburch, I have said nothing about "fame, importance, or popularity" since many obscure topics are notable because of the coverage they have received. After reading the talk page of your draft, I see that other experienced editors have described your draft article as original research. I agree. Wikipedia does not publish original research, and that is policy and therefore non-negotiable. I suggest that you submit your article to a publication that does publish original research. Their number is legion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328:You indicate that obscurity is no barrier to notability. You understand that this is an obscure topic, yet simple to describe via easily verifiable data and routine math. I have provided three examples. It's obscure enough that nobody has bothered to create a name for the class of methods, like was done for Beam-powered propulsion, but that doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that it isn't notable. And it certainly doesn't mean that it's WP:OR Matthewhburch (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Matthewhburch. When Wikipedians use the word "notable", they mean that a subject has been written about extensively in publications with editorial oversight, such as books, magazines, scientific journals, etc. The focus of your article appears to be in delivering a payload in space efficiently by using the remote fueling process described in the section "A Practical Remote Fuel Method", about which you appear to have written a book. For this method to be "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, a number of scientists and/or professional science writers would need to have written about it. The references you provided describe technological items that could be used as part of a payload delivery system, but do not discuss remote fueling of a payload in transit. Action: Find some references that do discuss this. Also, in several places you have included your own opinions and conclusions; a Wikipedia editor must be neutral and only summarize what others have written, so that the result is an encyclopedia article and not an essay. Action: change such affirmative statements (for example, "we cannot build a Bussard ramjet", "this is not a feasible method", "it is irrefutable"), to sentences referring to published sources which verify that experts in this area agree with these statements (for example, Professor X of Y University, in his book ZZZ, confirms that....", or "As reported in XXX journal, experiments conducted at the ABC space research lab have demonstrated that ..."). —Anne Delong (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Anne Delong, for explaining clearly, and better than I did, the type of coverage of a topic that establishes notability. Matthewhburch, it seems to me that not only have you failed so far to furnish that kind of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, but you have so far declined to address the core issue. Yes, relative obscurity is no barrier to notability, IF and only if the topic has received the coverage needed. You have been told many times now what our standards are. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Thank you Anne, for offering constructive and useful feedback. I have addressed the addressable parts of what you have mentioned already as I worked with another editor. However, it is not possible to reference any other document on the specific method that demonstrates a practical method, except the one I have written, because that specific subset of Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source has never been published. However, since it is a method of using existing technologies, defining the existing technologies that can be used to implement the method clearly define the method itself. The very clear and simple math describes the massive efficiency gains possible, which makes it notable. Obscurity, as you say, should not prevent article creation when it is very clearly obvious that an article is valid, verifiable, notable, and supported by simple calculations. Matthewhburch (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

Greetings, Teahousers. I have another basic question that I hope you can help with. I have been a member of a local astronomy club (the Astronomical Society of New South Wales) for some years. I notice that it does not have a WikiPedia page, and I would like to create one.

Provided I can support notability, etc, is there any conflict of interest being a club member? I have never been a club official, never been paid - just a regular member. Reading the guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest it does not seem to fall within the strict definition, but I want to make sure I get it right. If not a direct COI, should I declare my membership somewhere for transparency? Gronk Oz (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, Gronk Oz, and thanks for the question. Quoting a section of the COI policy, Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. An article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse. But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia. I think this addresses two parts of your question. First, yes you technically do have a mild COI as there is a relationship there outside of Wikipedia. Since you obviously are not here for the sole purpose of promoting the club, it comes down to the second part of the quote - does common sense tell you that you will be able to neutrally write about the topic? One challenge can be making sure that everything you write about the subject is verifiable - it can be difficult to "forget what you know" and rely on reliable sources.

If you do choose to write the article, you could consider adding Template:Connected contributor to the talk page to encourage a little extra scrutiny. If you wanted to write a draft, feel free to ping me and I can review it for you before it is moved to mainspace. VQuakr (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I will do that; it will take a while to get the draft ready for review, but then I will take you up on your kind offer to review it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add a little bit of personal experience here, Gronk Oz. I have been a member of the Sierra Club for 38 years, but have never been an officer or an employee. I disclose that mild conflict of interest on my talk page. I have written many biographies of notable Sierra Club leaders and also one about a wilderness property owned by the club. I do my best to write from the neutral point of view, and have never had any significant criticism of any of those articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 DoneThanks for the suggestion, Cullen. I copied your disclosure and adapted it on my own user page; it looks like a good way to provide that desired transparency.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Rename

Hellow fellow Wikipedians! I just recently got a rename, as of this policy, so my name is now MrWoohoo, not BrandonWu! Can someone take a look at my user page and my talk page at the notices? Also, I have a new signature that I give credit to Figureskatingfan! Thanks Christine! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 22:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse BrandonWu, oh sorry, I mean MrWooHoo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Haha Cullen, nice joke? (That was a joke, right.....?) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 14:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I wish to delete my article, remove my Commons file and delete my profile

This is more trouble than it's worth. How do I delete my Wiki profile, short article and associated image that I've spent the last 5 days working on? It's 10 times easier to publish it privately.

Thanks, A much better place (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, A much better place. Your draft article was declined because we already have an article about your topic, No. 168 Squadron RAF. You are welcome to help expand and improve that existing article. But it is against policy to have two articles on the exact same topic.

You blanked your draft and an administrator who saw your note here deleted it in accordance with your request. If by "profile", you mean a user page, you do not now have a user page. If you ever had one, it no longer exists. You can blank your user talk page if you wish. You can't delete your account. If you no longer want to edit, just stop editing. We have millions of inactive accounts. As for an image you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, you will have to ask an administrator there. In theory, release of an image under a Creative Commons license is irrevocable, but if there was some misunderstanding, perhaps someone there will assist you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen. Thanks you for your consideration & reply. As noted in my brief article, the RCAF (Canadian)and RAF (British) both had a No. 168 Squadron (as did the USAF (American)and probably other nations. They are all unrelated except they share the same arbitrary number. That should be clear from reading the articles.

I see I actually uploaded the same image twice in Commons - my mistake. It took me some time to even find it and I still don't know how to delete or clarify the copyright parameters there.

I guess I'm just not prepared to spend the time to learn the Wiki codes, HTML, copyright details and definitions so I'll move on. A much better place (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Problem with display on my talk page

I can see recent comments in my talk page history, but not when I view my talk page. Can anyone suggest what is happening please? Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Theroadislong. Another editor removed a ">" from tag markup causing the tag to never "end". I fixed that but can you fix the signatures? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to have auto numbering for an article?

I was hoping I could apply auto numbering to an article. I was able to go to preferences under my account and create auto numbering for myself. Is it possible to create auto numbering for an article so that anyone who views the article will see itAriveraaa (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Provided I understand what you mean by autonumbering; the text

# First point

# Second point

# Third point

will produce:-

1. First point
2. Second point
3. Third point

If you mean something else - please explain further - Arjayay (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that's what I meant. I didn't think it was possible, but wanted to check.

Thanks.130.156.135.75 (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

DON'T UNDERSTAND ERROR MESSAGE

Hi,

I'm having problems on a page I've been contributing to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Wife%27s_Family_(1941_film)

..Basically, I don't understand the message in red, even after reading the "help" page, and wonder if someone could assist, please? It's like technical gobbledegook/car mechanics to me...I also had problems cleaning up the references using User:Dispenser/Reflinks - they just wouldn't "take", for some reason.

Thanking you, Beryl reid fan (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Beryl reid fan, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've cleaned that article up for you and removed the red error. What that error meant was that someone had a named reference on the page that didn't have anything in it. Thank you for reporting the issue. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Technical 13! Beryl reid fan (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Specifically this referred to the code which said <ref name="allmovie1"/>. References can be given "names" so that the same reference can be referred to twice in the text. The code as written is asking the software to look for a reference which has been named "allmovie1", however no such reference exists. I guess that you want this reference to point to http://www.allmovie.com/movie/my-wifes-family-v103442 , a reference used later in the text. So what you need to do it "name" this reference allmovie1. To do this, amend the code that reads <ref>http://www.allmovie.com/movie/my-wifes-family-v103442</ref> so that it says <ref name="allmovie1">http://www.allmovie.com/movie/my-wifes-family-v103442</ref>. This will "name" the reference, eliminating the error.

Note: I now done this in the article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I cleaned it up with reflinks/citbot and they cleared out your change Luke because there was no need to have the same reference on two sequential pieces of information without a different source in between. Either way, it is looking good on that front now. The only remaining issue with the article is that it currently seems to lack reliable sources indicating its importance and notability. I suggest someone, possibly Beryl reid fan, and some more reliable sources to the article. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Technical 13 and LukeSurl - I will get on the case later re. notability and reliable source issues. Beryl reid fan (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

how can i insert photo in my edition?

Ovijatrik (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ovijatrik. I'm guessing you mean the article Maha Meru Shri Yantra temple,Amarkantak, Madhya Pradesh? I'm afraid that that article has been nominated for deletion, because Wikipedia does not publish essays or original research: it only publishes articles which summarise what reliable published sources have already said. So adding a photo to it would be a waste of your time. If the material is indeed available in independent reliable published sources, then you should add references to these sources to the article; if you have added such sources (several of them, that argue the points made in the article, not just incidental references to things mentioned in the article), then you may delete the {{prod}} from the top of the article, to stop it being deleted.

Having said all that, to add a photo to an article, you need to determine that the copyright status of the photo allows this use, and then upload it to Wikipedia (or preferably to Wikimedia commons); then you can use it in an article. See File upload wizard for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am musician from Lahore, Pakistan

I think there have been a slight confusion. I am not Imtiaz Ali, director from India. But I am Ali Imtiaz, musician from Pakistan. We both are different persons. My user page does not already exist. My recent track "Yaad Aata Hai" went to #3 on reverbnation charts of pop in Pakistan. I am currently ranked #3 as well in Pop artists category at reverbnation. Furthermore, I have added bit more independent references for the confirmation. Hope it works out this time. Cheers. :) AliImtiazHere (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ali, and welcome to the teahouse. There is no confusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not at present have an article about you, so if somebody searches for "Ali Imtiaz", the search engine does the best it can and points to the four articles we have about people called Imtiaz Ali. If you meet the criteria of notability for musicians, then Wikipedia could have an article about you - but you are strongly advised not to try and create this article yourself: see autobiography for why not. If you believe you do meet the criteria, then you could request that somebody write an article by asking at Requested articles; or you might find somebody at WikiProject Pakistan who is interested to do so. Note that your user page User:AliImtiazHere is not an appropriate place for writing an article about you. You may share some personal information on that page about you as a Wikipedia editor, which could certainly mention your career in passing; but attempting to write an article there will not be successful. --ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just seen that you were answered in a further question above. But my answer still stands. --ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

How to move user page to article?

I am new to Wikipedia and I am really confused. In confusion I requested one admin that my page is not biography but a user page, thinking it will still remain as article. But rather it is a user page now, not an article. How can I move my user page to article ? Thanks. AliImtiazHere (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. What you can do is read the instructions at WP:MOVE and move the page to Draft:Ali Imtiaz. Then place the code {{AFC submission|T}} at the top of the page to mark the article as a draft you are working on. Please note you do not have exclusive control over this draft, and other editors are as entitled to edit this draft as you are.

Now, this draft is a autobiography. Such drafts are strongly discouraged (but not explicitly forbidden) on Wikipedia for various reasons you can find at WP:AUTOBIO. Personally I would recommend that you stop attempting to create content on Wikipedia about yourself. If your music career is successful, and we wish you every success, it won't be long before a fan creates a Wikipedia page about you.

If really do wish to pursue this, please read the guidance at WP:AUTOBIO carefully. Writing an article about yourself is extremely difficult, as it requires you to adopt an external perspective and limit what you write about yourself to what others have written about you. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually AFC templates should be substituted, so the correct code is: {{Subst:Submit}} --ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor you are entitled to write a short profile of yourself at your user page (i.e. at User:AliImtiazHere). However this should not be used as a promotional page for your music, and nor should it masquerade as a full article. You can find guidance on user pages at WP:User pages. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so so much for your help mate. Seriously I was so confused but you have made my confusion as clear as the water of Lake Tahoe. Thanks for recommending me, to not to create an autobiography. I will for sure change content then and limit to just one or two paragraphs having bit profile info only at user page. And thanks a lot for such a nice words about my career. Cheers. :)

But as you mentioned if some fan can create page possibly in future, what if I give present content to some other person and request him/her to create article of me having same content. I think that is not a bad idea. What is your suggestion about it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliImtiazHere (talk • contribs) 16:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@AliImtiazHere: That is a bad idea. Gaming the system will not get you very far. Please read our conflict of interest guidelines. If you meet our notability criteria someone independent of you will probably write an article about you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks for the reply. Yeah have read it just now, sure.

Expanding width of my Infobox

I am using the OS info box. In my sandbox I created 2 (by copy, paste and edit): one just to show the logo and the other shows the screenshot & the list of information. The problem is the top box is 3/4 the width. I'd like them to align. Suggestions? ThanksRobpater (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Robpater: Welcome to the Teahouse! The OS Infobox actually lets you put both the logo and the screenshot into one infobox. I've jumped in and made the edit to your sandbox here, so you can see how it's done. I also removed excessive file formatting things; for infoboxes, you typically only need to put the file name and then include the size as another parameter (as I've done). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed that the images you want to include are non-free (copyrighted). Wikipedia tries to limit its usage of non-free images, so as a result, we cannot use them on our userpages. I've commented out the images here; if you ever move the contents to an article, you can then restore the images. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. RobRobpater (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

.... but is there a way to size infobox width? It appears to me the box has a maximum and minimum limit but cannot be set for a specific width independent of text content. 76.66.154.112 (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Robpater: I did some investigating - you can use the parameter |bodystyle = width:22em to set the width. 22 is the default value. By the looks of it though, you can't shrink the infobox, only grow it. Though personally, I'd leave the infobox width alone. I don't think I've ever seen the width changed in an article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

mark historical information as outdated

On the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Army_Airfield there are two runways listed, however, there is only one runway currently existing. The other was removed during some previous renovation. How do i mark the removed runway as removed in the table? My first thought was to simply delete it, but then i considered that the information was useful for historical/research purposes, and should be left in but marked.dunerat (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dunerat. First you need to find a reliable published reference which says that there is only one runway: if you cannot find such a reference, you should not put the information in the article, as it will not be verifiable. Ideally, you will find a source which says that the second runway has been closed, or is being closed, in which case that source will support both the former two runways (a piece of information presently unreferenced) and the current one.

As for how to show the information: I can suggest two approaches, either of which will work. One is to leave the table as it is, but put a note on whichever runway has closed - you might create a further column headed "Notes", or perhaps a column with "Dates". The other possibility is to remove the closed one from the table, but make sure that the History section describes it appropriately. --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, there'e the part where if i look out my office window, there's only one runway there. i don't know when the other one was removed, as i've only been working here about 6 months, but any overhead shot of the airfield, including the one at the top of the article, also clearly shows the single existing runway (which is 4/22). My concern re: adding a column is that the information is in the airport template, and i'm not sure how if i can add that information without breaking the imported template.dunerat (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I disagree, Colin. If Dunerat wants to include details such as when the runway went away in the article body they should be sourced, but a simple statement of fact such as "it no longer exists" is perfectly fine if verifiably true.

The requirement for verifiability is not a requirement that every detail be cited to a source. Look at WP:MINREF.

That being said, if you just look at the overhead photograph of the airport included in the article, it's obvious that the second runway no longer exists. It's also not included in the FAA database (look at the first external link), so just removing it from the infobox is perfectly fine. A 'closed' runway that is still in existence should be noted as closed (it would also be in the FAA database as a closed runway), but in this case it actually physically no longer exists. The previous configurations of the airport are already well discussed in the body of the article.

@Dunerat: Good catch. Kill it. Revent^talk 20:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Coordinate Errors and inconsistent Editor Policy on adding Google maps of educational content

A problem Wikipedia has is that no Wikipedia Editor Judge is checking to see that the plotted locations actually show an item such as a ruin. For example the Wikipedia provided coordinated for the ruins at Quara point to an open desert location that is 12 miles southeast of where the actual ruins are. The correct coordinates are 14° 13’ 35.88111” N, 20° 40’ 19.1594” E. The shape and size of the walled city match that in the photo shown on the Wikipedia page and is confirmed by the label in Google Map and the Panoramio photo located 1/2 mile to the west of this location. When I try to correct the coordinate, your editor required that it cite my source of information and denied my edit. But how to I source my own research in Google Map?

Since this form is way to short to explain the complete problem, please see the web page below:

http://myreadingmapped.blogspot.com/2014/06/wikipedia-coordinate-errors-and.html

Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Pragmaticstatistic: I've corrected the coordinates in the article Ouara and also in Wikidata, which is the repository used by the various language versions of Wikipedia. Thanks for pointing out the error. In the future, a good thing to do if you notice a coordinate error in an article is to click on the coordinates; near the top of the GeoHack page you're taken to, in the field labeled "Title", there's a link "report inaccuracies". Click on that and explain the error on the article's talk page; the template in the post will alert one of our intrepid coordinate experts to take action on your message. Deor (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just butting in to say thank you for this. The "report inaccuracies" link is one I had never noticed. I suspect that even the most intrepid coordinate experts may get reverted sometimes but it's worth a try anyway. Thincat (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Pragmaticstatistic: I'm probably not the best person to give you 'advice' about this in detail, but you should understand that an editor who undoes a change you make has exactly zero more 'authority' than you to determine what belongs in the article. There are no 'editor judges'... there are just other editors, of varying degrees of circumspection in what they 'undo'. Some editors have a bias toward feeling that existing content 'must' be correct, while others might have a feeling of 'ownership' about the old version. These are both wrong.

The proper way for an editor to 'disagree' with an edit is to undo it, once, with a meaningful edit summary. Any further debate about the issue should take place on the article's talk page, and there are various acceptable ways of soliciting other uninvolved editors to the discussion. I suggest you read the essay located at WP:BRD.

As an aside, IMO at least there are some kinds of 'incontrovertible facts' that shouldn't really require 'citations' because they are 'inherently' verifiable. The street address of a building would be an obvious example. This isn't to say that a 'source' would be bad, but information is simply required to be correct and verifiable, everything else is an elaboration on that. If you can't find a 'source' for the coordinates of something, but it's blatantly obvious to anyone who does 'due diligence', then just get a consensus opinion that it's right. Revent^talk 23:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely with Revent's comments. The "Wikipedia Editor Judge" in this case, Pragmaticstatistic is you. Edit boldly, and advocate for accuracy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have info that I want to put in an article, but there are no references.

There are several updates I would like to make on local streams, but as many of them are not of high signifigance to the area, there are only a handful of verifiable references, and many of them either lack detail or contain out of date information. Is there away around this? Is their a possibility of good references I haven't simply looked in the right place for?UpperPC (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, UpperPC. The first thing to ask yourself in such a case is how you obtained the information you want to add to the article? If you got that information from a reliable source, then all is well. Add the information and cite the source. If you learned that information from your own personal experience, or from a source not considered reliable on Wikipedia, then there are two possibilities: either the material is not appropriate for this encyclopedia, or you have to find a reliable source that verifies what you want to add. Google is useful but is not the "be all and end all". Local libraries, newspaper archives, government agencies or environmental groups may be able to assist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Post requires more notable sources

Hi there! I'm writing a page about Cooper's Hawk Winery and Restaurants, a restaurant chain in the Midwest. Before writing, I followed formats that other restaurant chains used for their Wikipedia pages. While I referenced Cooper's Hawk's website a few times, I also included more outside sources from reputable websites and newspapers. In fact, the number of third-party sources I used was more than what I found for other restaurant chains.

In the end, the page was rejected, and the reasoning was because I did not include enough third party sources, and it sounded like an advertisement. I've since revised the content and taken out phrases that may seem bias, but I'm not sure what to do about the number of sources. If I add more third party sources (I have six right now), it will make the page longer, and increase the risk of it sounding like an advertisement.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! CoopersHawk (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Try to put newspaper reports and latest article on a particular non-adv. article of a newspaper.Use neutral point of view. Focus more on its establishments and history than quality of food available there.Bishal Baishya 14:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Bishal BaishyaUser:Bishalbaishya2012Bishal Baishya 14:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

From your user-name, and the promotional nature of your draft, it appears you have a conflict of interest in editing Draft:Cooper's Hawk Winery & Restaurants. Please read, understand and follow our guidance on conflict of interest. Furthermore, it also appears that your username contravenes Wikipedia's username policy, so you should change that as well. - Arjayay (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, CoopersHawk. Your wording "formats that other restaurant chains used for their Wikipedia pages" betrays a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Those articles about restaurants should not have been written by people connected with those restaurants, just as an article about Cooper's Hawk should not be written by somebody connected with it. (My "should not" is a little bit exaggerated: writing with a conflict of interest is not forbidden, but it is strongly discouraged).

Some pointers about the language: "feature a modern, casual dining experience" is marketing speak. The English for "dining experience" is "meal". If a reliable source independent of the restaurant has described the place as "modern" or "casual", then those words can go in the article, suitably referenced; otherwise they are unsubstantiated puff, and don't belong there. And that's just the first sentence. :-) Do you see what I mean? --ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

CoopersHawk, I looked at the draft and deleted the language that I believe is holding things up. The process of getting an article into wikipedia is always frustrating for those seeking to write an entry about their business for the simple fact that wikipedia typically cannot accomplish what you hope to accomplish, which is to promote your business. The language has to be so plain that the final product usually isn't at all what they wanted it for.

When they say you need third party sources...it's not so much the type of sources that is the problem, it's what you're doing with them. The company's own website can be used to cite factual information like who the founder is, when they opened, how many stores there are, etc. Citing external sources for those pieces of information is helpful to establish that other sources are talking about Cooper's Hawk, but in terms of reliability, it's basically a lateral move. I mean, they're just getting the info from the company website anyway. What is stopping things here is the lack of reliable third party sources describing why Cooper's Hawk is notable. For instance, I found this news article that discusses the fast growth of the company. That's the kind of thing that needs to go in the article. Basically the article has to document something more special about the restaurant aside from the fact that it exists. You'll never get past the review process if it doesn't have that.

Btw, I LOVE Cooper's Hawk. The gluten free menu rocks. The strawberries are to die for. My only complaint is it's so busy that I only ever get to go there for lunch to even get in! Keep up the good work! Let me know if you need any help writing the article. You can leave a message on my talk page. Bali88 (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

How to cite the author of a foreword?

Hi! I'm trying to find out how to properly cite the foreword author. The main author will not be cited for this article, if that matters. I've puzzled through a few pages about citations and don't see the answer. Thought it might be easiest just to ask the experts here. Foreword author: Bessel A van der Kolk, MD

Thanks!Karinpower (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Removed extraneous </ref>, and added {{reflist-talk}} so that the reference will show.

Hello, Karinpower, and welcome to the teahouse. I suggest using the "chapter" parameter and use the "editor" parameters for the book authors. So

{{cite book |last=van der Kolk|first=Bessel A|chapter=Foreword|editor1-last= Ogden |editor1-first= Pat |editor2-last= Minton |editor2-first= Kekuni |editor3-last= Pain |editor3-first= Clare |year= 2006|title= Trauma and the Body: A Sensorimotor Approach to Psychotherapy |publisher= [[Norton]] |page= xxiii |isbn=0393704572}}

displays as:

van der Kolk, Bessel A (2006). "Foreword". In Ogden, Pat; Minton, Kekuni; Pain, Clare (eds.). Trauma and the Body: A Sensorimotor Approach to Psychotherapy. Norton. p. xxiii. ISBN 0393704572.

--ColinFine (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine! I figured the answer would be simple and elegant, and it is! Perfect. My only question is... the other authors are not really editors, they are co-authors of the entire rest of the book. Any alternative way to list them? Thank you!--Karinpower (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so, Karinpower. But if you look at the citation as it appears above, it doesn't mark them as "(ed.)" or anything like that, so it seems to me that the end result is just what you want. It's only in the hidden code that the inappropriate "editor" appears, just as the inappropriate word "chapter" appears. You could suggest a change to the template on Template Talk:cite book, but I think that would be further complicating an already complex template for very little real gain. --ColinFine (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Stupid! Uploaded an orphaned file AND NOBODY TOLD ME ABOUT IT WHAT THE HECK IS THIS LOGIC

I once uploaded a file, but then, someone deleted it, because it is orphaned. It is supposed to be used in The Fault in Our Stars (film), but someone deleted the pic, and it is orphaned. After that, someone put the CSD template, like duh, and now, it is deleted. WHAT LOGIC IS THIS HOW CAN YOU CHECK THE HISTORY OF DELETED STUFF? CAN YOU? I DID NOT EVEN RECEIVE A SINGLE NOTIFICATION ABOUT THAT WHAT THE S**T AND NOW YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENED? NOBODY TOLD ME AND IT WAS IN MY WATCHLIST SO I FREAKING DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS DAMN IDIOTIC WIKIPEDIANS. AT LEAST THEY SHOULD HAVE TOLD ME THAT IT IS UP FOR SPEEDY DELETION! Can you check a history of a deleted file? Can you? Now, I have to re-upload thanks to this inconsiderate dude which I don't know what user it is. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nahnah4, and please sit down, take three deep breaths, and have a warm cup of non-caffeinated herb tea. If you uploaded your image to Wikimedia Commons, then you would not get a notice here on Wikipedia. You have to check your talk page there for notifications. If you uploaded the image here, then it would have to comply with WP:NFCI and be used in an article. When I look at The Fault in Our Stars (film), I see a non-free image of a poster already used in the article. It would be unusual to have several non-free images in a film article, and that would require a compelling rationale. So, instead of typing in ALL CAPS which comes off as shouting, why not calm down and explain your point more clearly? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Cullen328: Thanks. It was meant for the soundtrack cover. I did not receive the notification, and I uploaded it to Wikipedia, not Commons. I somehow highly think that they deleted the soundtrack cover as it looks almost like the poster, but the soundtrack album has a cover, so I don't get the logic. That's first. Second, I really encountered a several number of times where my files just get nominated for speedy deletion and no notification get it back to me. Luckily, for the previous files, I did check. But, for this file, zoom! It was gone! I did not check WP for a continuous 9 days as I am overseas, and I think that it might have happened somewhere in the middle. I am just... sad? As the soundtrack album HAS a cover, but they deleted mine, even though my source was from a valid source - iTunes. So? Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 06:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: - Hi Nahnah. You can view the deletion logs of any page through Special:Logs. I'm assuming the file you are talking about is File:The Fault in Our Stars (Music from the Motion Picture) Official Cover.jpg? The logs for this file show that it was deleted a couple days ago for not being used in any articles. I looked into it some more, and found that the file was removed from the article you placed the image in with this edit, citing MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Policy states that non-free album covers shouldn't be used in articles on films. As a result, the image was then deleted as unused. The image should have been tagged for deletion for seven days under F5 criteria, and you should have been notified, but you weren't. Not a huge deal in the end, though, as the image couldn't have been used regardless. Hope this helps, and sorry that you ran into confusion. Just remember to keep it cool ;) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@SuperHamster: If a non-free album cover can't be used in a film page, why does Alice in Wonderland has an album cover under the "Soundtrack" section in the same article. Ironies. And, I didn't know that another freaking file of mine which I uploaded has been deleted due to the same reason. WTF (Actually I find WP policies kinda weird). Anyway, people should send me notifications regardless of anything. I NEED TO KNOW WHO DELETED MY TFIOS FILE. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 06:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: Just because it's done in another article doesn't mean it's right. I've gone ahead and removed the album cover from Alice in Wonderland - thanks for pointing that out.

As for your file, the logs I linked to show that MER-C is the administrator who deleted your file. Note that it is the responsibility of whoever tagged the page to notify the uploader, unless the file was deleted without ever being tagged. Since non-admins cannot see a delete page's editing history, I'm going to assume that the page was tagged for deletion around the 15th by an editor who didn't inform you, and was then deleted around a week later by MER-C. Again, the deletion was fairly uncontroversial, as there was no way that file was going to be used, so it's not too big a deal...though I do agree that it's always nice to get a notification about such things. If you wish to contact MER-C and ask about the file's editing history, feel free, but I recommend you take up Cullen's advice on the herbal tea and do so calmly and politely. As always, edits aren't personal, and having a file uncontroversially deleted isn't something to worry much about - the file had and has no chance of survival. I did mention MER-C in this comment, so they may end up seeing this discussion anyway. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It was tagged for deletion by Erik when he removed it from the article 15 June. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the image from the article per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and tagged it for deletion. I haven't notified editors before, but I can do that now, at least for newer images and active editors. (Some older images were uploaded by editors long gone.) Nahnah4, I apologize for the lack of notification. Removing soundtrack cover images is pretty routine for me because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and it's contrary to that to have additional non-free images after the key identifying one suffices for an article. Films are mostly copyrighted works, so it can be a challenge to "spruce up" an article when one needs to demonstrate fair use with non-free images. Let me know if you have any questions about the guidelines that warranted this image's removal. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Nahnah, just to answer your last point, if a delete file is subsequently shown to be useable and in line with policies, you don't need to upload it again, the deleted version can be restored by asking any admin if they will oblige. Nthep (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of a page

Hello, I recently had helped to contribute to update a surgeon's profile and as a result it was deleted. The surgeon just recently won this award: http://prod.www.steelers.clubs.nfl.com/news/article-1/Steelers-team-doctor-wins-NFL-honor/3561a16d-0d6a-4a49-aa00-22f371d9737a

So my goal was just to updated by adding this acheivement but instead of leaving the article prior to my addition, they decided to delete it. So if someone acheives something good and there's evidence, why is it not allowed? and furthermore why is it punished? Damarisgomez (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The deletion of an article is in no way punitive, is not intended to be so. Not all people are suitable topics for a Wikipedia article. You can see the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bradley (surgeon). Revent^talk 19:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the link provided as evidence of the award is not from a neutral source, but from the website of the team that employs the doctor. Even if the article was still there, the award would need to be verified by an independent published source such as a news report or magazine article; this is the only way that Wikipedia readers can tell that this is a notable award. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

changing a link

On this page

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

I want to alter the Evening Standard link to

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/ncropa/ncropa-1976-1.jpg

or

https://web.archive.org/web/20130423170613/http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/ncropa/ncropa-1976-1.jpg

I would also like to get rid of the ^ between 1. and London.

Thanks VennerRoad (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello VennerRoad, and welcome! This is a good place for the cite-web template. You can replace the current cite-news template with this one. If you need help with how to fill it out, please ask here and we'll be glad to assist you. As to the carrot caret, that actually provides a link to the location of the source in the article and cannot be removed; if you were looking at the reference list, you can click on the carrot caret (^) and it will take you back to the point in the article where it appears. Hope this helps! --McDoobAU93 14:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, that's a caret rather than a root vegetable! --ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

VxWorks info box

The line, 'Working State' is in edit mode but does not show up in read mode. How do I fix this? Rob Robpater (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Rob, the parameter name was wrong, it's |working state= not |working_state=, inconsistent with some of the other parameters for the inforbox but the way it is I'm afraid to say (welcome to Wikipedia whackiness). Fixed for you in the article now. Nthep (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change but it still does not apear to be visible? Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's visible to me, third parameter below the picture. Nthep (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Minecraft

What color is the dust in Minecraft that transfers signals? (89.100.102.190 (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello 89.100, and welcome! As it turns out, this is not really the best place for this type of question. However, I can point you to the one that is ... head over to the Entertainment Reference Desk and ask there. You should get a response soon! --McDoobAU93 15:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

me lil brother says it's red, cheers ~Helicopter Llama~ 15:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@89.100.102.190: It's called redstone and the colors are: dec: 331 hex: 14B bin: 101001011.  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Viewing page 2 and also references

I'm creating a new page in my Sandbox. I don't understand why I can't view the second page when I have saved it and finished editing. Also, references 3-5 bunch up at the foot of page 1 that is viewable, instead of being placed in the correct order in page 1.Pruethorner (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pruethorner and welcome to the Teahouse. I've added the required {{reflist}} template to your draft. Does that solve your problem? Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It might also be a good idea to make sure that your personal involvement does not give rise to a possible Conflict of interest, which could put the article at risk. Quoting from the COI guideline: "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends." --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding a logo to an article being developed in User space

I'm back again with another dumb question. (Maybe if you guys didn't keep answering them so effectively, I would stop asking - but I guess that might defeat the whole purpose!) Anyway, I am creating an article in a User space. It is about an organization, and I want to upload their logo to use on the page. I have read all about the copyright considerations etc, and I am comfortable that this is within the guidelines, but the mechanics of it have me beat. In order to upload it, I need to provide the name of the page where the logo will be used. But it complains that there is no such page, because the article has not been created in main space yet. So I can see two options; should I:

1. Upload the file pointing to my User page, which will then be wrong once it is promoted to the main space;
2. Promote the article without the logo, then come back and edit it to add the logo later;
3. Do something else, that I can't think of? Gronk Oz (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Gronk. I assume this is not under a compatible free copyright license or in the public domain, which logos almost never are. As such, is can only be used under a claim of fair use. Fair use files cannot be used outside the article mainspace and shouldn't be uploaded as orphans. So my advice is to wait until the article has been moved to the mainspace and only then upload it. You can pre-define the image in the infobox or however you expect to use it – just use the file name you expect to give it and it will be a red link. When you upload under that exact title, it will seamlessly propagate into the displayed article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant - thanks, Fuhghettaboutit. You interpreted the situation perfectly, and I will do as you suggest. I have put a place-holder logo (File:Placeholder_logo.png) there for now, and I will add the real logo after the article has been moved to the mainspace. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Text Removed After Inserting Headings

Hi:I am a recent editor. I added several small headings to the text I was working on to give it some shape. After two of the headings, some of the text that followed was suddenly turned into a different typeface, and some of the text was deleted. How do I correct these, and avoid having this happen in the future? Lawrence ChadbourneLawrence Chadbourne (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If you indent text with a space...

...it looks like this.

I have fixed the article and made a few other formatting fixes.--ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CHEATSHEET is a link to a page that is sometimes useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

a question of badges

Hello everyone, I wonder what a wikipedia badge is, and what can you do with it. If you earn a Wikipedia adventure, can you use it as a tool???????? SparrowHK (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hellow SparrowHK and welcome. See Wikipedia:Awards which explains various awards and badges and the like. Such awards and badges are purely decorative and honorary and grant no special privileges other than good feelings. Some people like to give awards to others to let them know they are appreciated, others like to place badges on their page to let others know about their interests or experience at Wikipedia, but otherwise such things hold no special meaning at Wikipedia. All editors are considered equal by Wikipedia's core principles, and being granted an award does not have any practical effect on your editing of Wikipedia. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 01:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)