Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 226

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 220←Archive 224Archive 225Archive 226Archive 227Archive 228→Archive 230

Does

Does Wikipedia lies? Macman(252) (My edits!!!!!) 02:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Macman252! Wikipedia is not a sentient being so it is incapable of lying, per se. --Jayron32 03:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Macman252. Since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it certainly contains some lies. It also contains some honest errors and misinterpretations. However, many thousands of volunteer editors work to improve articles, to bring them more closely into compliance with our policies, which includes verifiability. I believe in general that most Wikipedia articles are reasonably accurate, but there are exceptions. Do not automatically believe everything you read here. Instead, consider a Wikipedia article an introduction to a topic, and use the references, the further reading, and the external links to learn more and verify what the article says for yourself. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I accidentally edited without logging in now I would like to remove my ip address.

I didn't realize I wasn't logged in when I made a suggestion for an edit. I would like my information removed if possible. 72.193.222.245 (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems you did it again. You can find an administrator actively editing right now at WP:AN or WP:ANI, and ask for assistance on their talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
You can also place {{admin help}} with an explanatory note on your talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Adding on to Cullen's answer, you may also shoot an email to Wikipedia's Oversight team, which can be done through your account at Special:EmailUser/Oversight. This is particularly useful if you want to attract as little attention as possible. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

How to edit the wrongly mentioned title of an article?

Aalooksth (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It would have been better if you had mentioned article name. Are you talking about St. Xavier's College, Kathmandu which you have copy-pasted here in draft? Abhi (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Peer Certificate

Hi Everyone... I Know You Probably Don't Get Questions Like This Often.. But I Have Checked & Asked Everyone.. And It Still Isn't Working.. I Had To Do A Factory Reset On My Samsung Illusion.. Ever Since Then My Peer Certificate Does Not Work.. I Can't Sync Anything... Any Help Would Be Appreciated.. Thanks..— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueEyes1982 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC+9)

Hello, BlueEyes1982. You're welcome in the Teahouse, but your particular question is indeed of a kind we don't often get here, because the Teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia. But we have a Reference Desk where your question would be entirely appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

submitting an article

how to I submit an article for inclusion in Wikipedia? Tjdurkee (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Tjdurkee to Teahouse! You could try Articles for Creation, it's a great way to start an article with helpful reviewers assisting you when your ready to submit you draft. ///EuroCarGT 02:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

a reference was rejected, see below

At March on Washington: The anger, the fear, the love and the hope By John D. Due, Jr., Special to CNN updated 6:48 PM EDT, Sun September 1, 2013

This is a bonafide reference that can be found on google, but it was refused. Yaelony (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Yaelony. The reference you tried to add to Zev Aelony was neither "rejected" nor "refused". Instead, you made syntax errors in the wikicode for adding the reference. I have corrected your syntax errors, although you should add the URL to the CNN piece, so that interested readers can go there if they wish. Please be aware that the syntax of the coding of a reference is unforgiving. Everything must be "just so", and named references can be especially tricky. Please refer to Referencing for beginners for a detailed explanation.
On another matter, the article needs copyediting to remove the breezy tone, and I recommend a careful reading of WP:NPOV in that regard. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox works has disappeared - can it be retrieved?

Good morning Teahouse,

I was working on an article using Sandbox and my work has since disappeared. Am I able to retrieve it somewhere?

AmyCKing (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, easy.
This can be hard if the histories are long, but fortunately you're new here and so we can see your edit history very easily. Special:Contributions/AmyCKing shows your edits. I think you'll be wanting [1] [2]
The sandbox at Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing/sandbox is a shared area really intended for simple, disposable training exercises. If you're after somewhere to draft the beginnings of an article, then I'd instead suggest using either a bit of your userspace like User:AmyCKing/Noosphere or else the WP:DRAFT namespace at Draft:Noosphere. Take a look at WP:Articles for Creation too. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I mention another user?

I'm reverting an article to a previous revision due to vandalism and in the edit summary box I would like to mention the ip address of the suspected vandal and the username of the person whose revision I'm reverting to as links to their user/contribution pages. How do I do this since using the standard [ [ bracket ] ] format does not work with usernames? Musicmaster7 (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Musicmaster7. There are a number of techniques, which I will illustrate with my own user name.
The wikicode {{U|Cullen328}} produces: Cullen328, and sends the user (me) a notification.
The wikicode [[User:Cullen328]] produces User:Cullen328, which is a link to my user page.
The wikicode [[User talk:Cullen328]] produces User talk:Cullen328, which is a link to my talk page.
There are other techniques to "ping" but that's how I do it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Many Thanks!!!Musicmaster7 (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Musicmaster7:, there are several ways of reverting of which the easiest is the undo feature, found in the history of the article. Usually if you are reverting a single edit, the edit summary will automatically generate the username of the person you are reverting. Green Giant (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Musicmaster7: Please note that "pings" and other username mentions do not trigger the notification system when used in edit summaries since these become part of the article history and it would create a horrible tangle.  Philg88 ♦talk 13:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia and my article got rejected everytime i make a submission?

I am new to wikipedia and my article got rejected every time i make a submission. I am not able to understand the reason for rejection. If it is to provide a document for the creation or authentication, i can provide the registration documents signed by the lawful authorities on my website as they are the documents which need not to be provided in public. Will it help me if i provide the documents on my website.

Regards Ashish150887Ashish150887 (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Asish, and thank you for asking about this. I can see at User:Ashish150887/sandbox that two editors have rejected your draft. They have both given the same reason (and it is one that I agree with) but obviously you are not understanding what they are saying. What they have put is clear to me but I am used to the Wikipedia-ish way of speaking. Have a look at Cloudian, Inc. which is also a recent article about a software business. At the bottom you will see a list of "references" to newspapers and journals writing about this firm. Your article must have someting like this although a few references will be enough. You don't need as many as Cloudian has. These references must have been written by people not connected with Nalashaa. Have a look again at the reason for rejection and see about following up on the links provided there. You do not need to supply any legal documents. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Ashish150887. Wikipedia does not have articles on everything that exists. It does not have an article on me, or my house, or a company that I am a director of; nor should it, because nobody has already thought it appropriate to write an article about me and my affairs in a reliable published source such as a major newspaper. That is the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia: if more than one person has written a substantial article about Nalashaa Solutions (not just a listing, or mentioning it in passing) and had it published in a reliable place such as a major newspaper or a book from a reputable publisher, then Wikipedia can take note of the company - but the Wikipedia article needs to reference these articles. If these sources do not yet exist, then Wikipedia will not have an article on it, and you are wasting your time trying to write one. --ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

How i write about me.

Send me guideline about my problem.Ala ud din Jutt 17:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alauddinjutt (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC+9)

Hello Ala ud din Jutt, and welcome to the Teahouse. The guideline about writing about yourself is autobiography, which strongly advises you not to do so. You may write a bit about yourself as a Wikipedia editor on your user page User:Alauddinjutt, but it should not be anything which looks like an encyclopaedia article: see user pages for information about that. --ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

OS Infobox

Is it OK to move the start up screen to the end of the infobox rather than being under the logo? In my case I feel it looks better. RobRobpater (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Robpater. If you're proposing to change a template, you should certainly discuss it at the template's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Changing the tone of the article

Hi, this is my first time writing an article and I am really struggling with my writing tone, as it is coming across as an advertisement. Can someone maybe go over article and show me how to fix it or offer any any advice or counsel?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brefin123/sandbox

Thanks soooo much

Brefin123 (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Brefin123 and welcome to the Teahouse. :) Examples of problematic wording in the article are marked in bold:
From the "Company History" section:
"Quintessentially Events is a multi-award-winning event management company delivering exceptional events around the world for leading luxury and lifestyle brands as well as discerning, affluent individuals.
Established by leading event producers, Anabel Fielding and Caroline Hurley [3], Quintessentially Events has been behind some of the most creative, exclusive, high end events and brand experiences of the past 11 years. Quintessentially Events spectrum of expertise covers high profile, luxury brand and bespoke corporate events, private parties, fundraisers and weddings [4].
Quintessentially Events has a family of specialist teams in nine global territories at present; London Cote, D’Azure, Geneva, Milan, Baku, Dubai, New Delhi, Hong Kong and Singapore. These offices are supported by Quintessentially Lifestyle’s [5] 68 dedicated offices in every major city around the world. As part of Quintessentially, the world’s No. 1 lifestyle group Quintessentially Events is able to leverage extraordinary access and support from a wide base of international partnerships, products and services."

--AmaryllisGardener talk 16:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see why it's being rejected, as it's stuffed full of promotional phrases and unsourced claims like that it's "delivering exceptional events around the world for leading luxury and lifestyle brands as well as discerning, affluent individuals" , "Established by leading event producers" , "Quintessentially Events has been behind some of the most creative, exclusive, high end events and brand experiences of the past 11 years" , "spectrum of expertise" , "family of specialist teams" , "68 dedicated offices in every major city around the world", "the world’s No. 1 lifestyle group." That all reads like a promotional brochure for the company is not even within a million miles of the impartial tone that we expect our articles to have. The article should be based on third party sources, not those affiliated with the company. If you are unable to find those about what is claimed to be "the world's no.1 lifestyle group" then it may be that it isn't notable enough for an article. Personally, I've searched and don't see enough to warrant an article which can go any further than the larger organisation (which already has a Wikipedia article) Quintessentially Group. Valenciano (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both so much for your help, what I am trying to do is highlight the different branches that fall under the larger organisation that is the Quintessentially Group. Brefin123 (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Brefin123, you might also find Manual of Style/Words to watch a useful guide for cleaning up the promotional language. Even more important, though, is finding those independent sources. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes you just have to accept that not every division of a company is sufficiently notable to have its own article.--ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Amaryllis. How do the reliable sources independent of the company "highlight the different branches". If they do so, then you can use their words. If they don't then the different branches should not have separate articles. --ColinFine (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
But if that results in a bunch of short articles about the divisions, that's probably not the best outcome, as opposed to expanding the main article with additional, non-spammy, referenced material about its divisions.--ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

non-profit with many pages referenced that need correction or clarification - can we do this ourselves?

Hello, I am a relatively new Wikipedia editor. I work on the staff of a large not-for-profit professional engineering association that has many Wikipedia page references. Some have been created by our members, some by contractors working for SME organizations that are part of the association, some by others. We'd like to correct, enhance and "harmonize" many of the pages referring to our organization - so they have consistent formatting and content for different entity types e.g. committees, publications, etc. Is it OK with Wikipedia policy if we do that? We (the central support organization) are the team that has the "correct" information - members are sometimes behind in this information. But, we're worried about contravening Wikipedaa editorial and contribution policies. Any advice or counsel? Dgoessling (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dgoessling. Thanks for asking. My advice is to read conflict of interest, to understand why you are discouraged from editing any of these articles. You are welcome to make suggestions on the talk pages of the articles, but your view of how best to present the articles may not entirely coincide with Wikipedia's needs (for example, if there are reliable sources which are critical of your organisation or some of its members). Since you are concerned with a number of articles, you may find it useful to post at a WikiProject such as WikiProject Engineering, and see if there is somebody uninvolved who would like to work with you to improve the articles. --ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Please note that, as explained here, Wikipedia policies make no distinction between for-profit and non-profit companies.
I am also a little concerned by your use of the phrase '"correct" information', reliable sources are what determine the information to be included, not you. As stated here "Content that is added must be published by a reliable source. This means a third-party source - for most content, your website [and your press releases] do not count as a source." - Arjayay (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello,

Thanks for the quick response. A lot of the information that we wish to post is only (quickly) available within our our organization. That's what I meant by correct. For example we publish many technical journals, and sometimes the publication schedule or the editor or other information about that publication will change and we'd like to post it. I think this is useful information for the community, but I've noticed that existing pages regarding some of our journals have not been updated in a timely manner, or at all since they were first added. Similarly, we also give out numerous awards and medals to the engineering community. There are Wikipedia pages for some of these, but not all, and the lists of recipients on the pages that are here haven't been maintained. That's the kind of updates that we want to make. Also, we have no problem with others adding info critical of the organization: that's how changes ripple through the organization. I hope this helps. Dgoessling (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dgoessling! You are correct that the lists of recipients of the various IEEE awards named after people from the organisations that "sponsor" the awards have not been well maintained. The best solution would be to merge the various awards articles into the article on the IEEE (or perhaps some sub-article dealing with that organisation's awards). This would have the advantage that there would be no need to maintain huge and ever-growing lists of award recipients. (Unless of course, a specific award received significant coverage in independent reliable sources.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

We are a non-profit promoting Indian languages and Art & Sciences

in reference to Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vedic_Vidyalay We are struggling with Notability issue and third party sources.

As we are non profit and small organization we have coverage from community news papers and news channels only, isn't that enough? Bhupendra भूपेन्द्र: (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bhupendra भूपेन्द्र:. I don't think that "community" news coverage will be enough to establish notability of a small organization. Please read our notability guideline on organizations for complete details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I may have made a mistake here. Someone else's signature didn't display correctly in another Teahouse question and the person was given the advice NOT to check the box saying to treat the above as Wiki markup. After doing that the person's signature displayed correctly. But mine is checked.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

How to provide accuracy to my Bio as a public figure

How do I provide accurate information to my Bio without violating the terms of use in Wikipedia and avoid COI's? Additionally how may I correct inaccurate information in my Bio especially as it relates to marital status updating? Thank you. 1igriot (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 1igriot, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answers are summarised at WP:AUTOPROB: resist the temptation to edit the article, and instead make your suggestions on the article's talk page; and provide reliable published references for any information you want added. --ColinFine (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Firstly, thank you for understanding that COI can be a problem, and for trying to avoid it.
The basic advice is set out at WP:COIADVICE - fundamentally, most changes should be suggested on the article talk page, and include Independant, Reliable, Sources to back them up.
This is not "what you know", nor what has been published on your (or your agent's or publisher's) website, nor press releases, nor blogs or other unreliable material.
As some talk pages are visited infrequently, you may wish to add the text {{request edit}} by your suggested change, which will include it on a list of such edits, so it should be dealt with quicker. - Arjayay (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest with HUDCO

Hi This is Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited,( HUDCO) New Delhi, India, www.hudco.org. We are a purely Govt of India Enterprise under Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation. Govt of India through HUDCO regulates/ finance loan for the development of Housing and Urban Infrastructure in India. We work mainly for social justice and empowerment. Recently we updated wiki with our new informative brochure indicating HUDCO PROGRAMMES, HUDCO’S CONTRIBUTION IN HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, HUDCO’s PERFORMANCE – 2013-14, NEW INITIATIVES BY HUDCO AND HUDCO’s ROLE IN MAJOR INITIATIVES OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. However complete updation was reverted on 20th June at 05:39 by Rosiestep ( Teahouse host), with indication that there is a conflict of Interest. I am feeling helpless and need guidance “how to upload the latest information at wiki” and what was the conflict of Interest with whom? Kindly help us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudco (talk • contribs) 08:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Hudco, and welcome to the Teahouse. The conflict of interest is that you are editing an article about your own organisation: this is always discouraged, as it is likely to be difficult for you to maintain the neutral point of view that Wikipedia articles require. Please see conflict of interest for more about this. If there are changes which you think would improve the article about your organisation, you are encouraged to post on the article's talk page, suggesting what you would like changed, and giving references to reliable published sources, independent of your organisation which support the information. Adding a brochure published by you is very unlikely to be appropriate to an encyclopaedia article about you.
One more point: please note that all Wikipedia accounts are required to be personal, for reasons of attribution. Multiple people may not share an account, and roles connected with organisations may not have accounts; furthermore, accounts may not have names which even suggest that they represent organisations. Each of you who is using that account should immediately create a separate personal account. See WP:NOSHARE for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Should I remove edits on the talk page when corrections to the main page have been made?

I recently made an edit on a talk page and the proper corrections were made in the main article. I am just wondering whether I should delete what I put on the talk page as it is now unnecessary. (Sorry I am new) Thank you Trigzter (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Trigzter, and welcome to the Teahouse. In response to your question, if people have responded to your talk page comments, it would be best not to remove them as they are needed for context. If no one responded, then you are free to remove them. Though I would recommend striking them instead. {{strikethrough|Text that is to be struck}} = Text that is to be struck. Tutelary (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You could also use {{Done}} to signify completion as in  Done or {{not done}} with a reason. It displays as  Not done. There are so many ways. But removal is almost always inappropriate. If they are other people's comments it is always inappropriate. Fiddle Faddle 23:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
What about archiving?--Karinpower (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree a bit with some of the other responses. My simple answer is no you shouldn't remove (or strike through or archive) the stuff from the Talk page. For one thing, nothing on Wikipedia is ever completely finished. Just because people have reached a consensus and the edits have been made doesn't mean someone else might not come along in a month or a year and have a different opinion. That is why we keep Talk pages, they are an audit trail so that we know not just WHAT was changed (the article itself) but WHY. Also, you shouldn't IMO use strikethrough on something just because the discussion has reached a consensus. Strikethrough should be used sparingly and only when you wrote something that you later consider wrong in some serious way. And as for archiving, if the Talk page is getting cluttered and if there are very long very old discussions (or if someone posts a lot of text that is irrelevant and just getting in the way) those are the times you archive IMO but not just because you've reached a consensus and completed some changes. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Self Interview

I am planning on meeting Randor Guy, a reputed film historian in my city. I am planning on conducting an interview with him in the hopes of clarifying some original research. If the interview with him is recorded on camera, can that be used as a reliable source? 07:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kailash29792. Your project presents a number of problems, related to what you called original research in your own words. How would anyone know whether or not the interview was selectively edited? How do we know that the questions asked are the most appropriate and relevant under the circumstances? Most fundamentally, how do we know that the person in the video is actually Randor Guy instead of an imposter? We know these things when an interview is published by a reliable source, with professional editorial control, and a reputation for checking facts and correcting errors. We have no such assurances when a random video pops up on the internet. So, my suggestion is to arrange to have your interview published by a reliable source. Then, it can be cited here on Wikipedia. If no reliable source considers your interview worth publishing, then why should we consider it worth citing? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you on these points, and thank you for clarifying my doubts. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: You might also be interested in one of our sister projects, Wikinews, which does publish these sorts of things sometimes. Zell Faze (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Rejected article

The article I was working on is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Farm_%26_Home_Supply

First it was rejected as "advertising" so I removed the suspected elements. Then it was rejected as not meeting "notability" guidelines.

But there are many pages on Wikipedia that are simple, informational posts that matter to a non-mainstream audience, and thus will not have been featured on CNN, etc. A couple examples of companies similar to the one I'm interested in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_King and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blain's_Farm_and_Fleet.

Thanks. Mbadqcy (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mbadqcy: Thank you for coming here. Your question is reasonable. The answer is, I fear, that your references are, none of them, suitable. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. The references are not about the business (some are about the owners), or not independent. None have significant coverage. None is in WP:RS as far as I can tell. Provided you can find other references this is not a problem. If you can't then you have fallen at the biggest hurdle, and cannot proceed.
If the business is truly WP:N it will be featured in something you can quote that meets our exacting standards. Your article is not, in my view, an advert.
The section on other similar business has no place in the article unless those business have articles. That might be construed by an uncharitable reviewer as advertising.
Your comment about other articles would be a great argument if Wikipedia did not have a stance that no one article sets a precedent for any other article. If it did then we would gradually lower the standards by dint of precedent and would descend to Idiocracy.
I will place relevant reviewer comments on your draft for your use. Fiddle Faddle 15:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Fiddle Faddle

Thanks for the clarifications. I will continue to seek out other sources and improve the article. Your feedback is appreciated. Mbadqcy (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding and updating more factual and accurate information

I was a member of the 2-18th Field Artillery Battalion, one of the battalions in 212th FA Brigade during Operation Iraqi freedom in 2003. The article about 212th Brigade does not mention a lot about the 2-18 FA Battalion. I would like to update the article so it is more factual and accurate. Please tell me what the procedure is to update the article. Thank you in advance! 131.92.135.38 (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 131.92, and welcome to the Teahouse! First of all, thank you for your service. To answer your question, what we're most looking for is reliable sources that confirm the information added to the article. Unfortunately, this cannot include personal observations as we cannot verify what you may have seen. If you have third-party sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles, that have information related to the unit, by all means be bold and add it. Editors at that article will be glad to assist you with citing sources, and of course you can return to the Teahouse anytime for additional help! --McDoobAU93 13:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello! McDoob has given some great advice there. I'd also like to let you know about WikiProject Military history. This is a group of editors who like to improve Wikipedia's articles on military-related topics, and support and advise each other on doing so. I expect that many members will be veterans and it sounds like it might be a group for you! If it sounds good for you, go to the group's main discussion page and introduce yourself, I'm sure they'd be very happy to help you improve the content about your battalion, and any other similar articles you wanted to work on. Cheers! --LukeSurl t c 16:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Citation preferences: {{sfn|name|year|etc.}} versus <ref>{{harvnb|name|year|etc.}}</ref>

Recently I've come to prefer the {{sfn}} type because you don't have to use the <ref> tags. Is there any advantage in using harvnb? Jodosma (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

harvnb is the older form. sfn (shortened footnote) was developed later to simplify things. See Help:Shortened footnotes. As that page says: Shortened footnotes are a hybrid of standard footnotes and parenthetical referencing (Harvard). They use in-text cites that link to a shortened reference in a list and a separate full reference list. The shortened reference may link to the full reference.. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I think sfn makes a lot more sense, although since I started this thread I've realised that harvnb can sometimes be easier to use with a name if the exact same ref is repeated several times; it can reduce clutter in the edit window. It would be nice if you could flag the first occurrence of an sfn ref, say with a letter so that you only had to use the flag later in the document, perhaps with a different page number if required. (It's early days for this so maybe I'm asking for too much). Jodosma (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hi There,

I am a new editor and have been trying to get an article published for quite a while. Most recently it was declined from an editor with reliable sources as the reason. Of 9 sources, I have three that are respected news sources (including the Huffington Post. I have an endorsement from WalMartOne and some other online coverage. I don't know what to do, but I would like to get this published. What is notable if this is not? (I also have another source to add, but hesitate to since these don't seemt o be adequate.) Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/GCFLearnFree.org Please help me? LauraMcAliley (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Laura and welcome to The Teahouse. The topic appears to me to qualify as notable, but the article could certainly use some expansion, with sources at least as good as the ones you used.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if you have scrolled down in the article and sen the additional guidance left? When we review we try to leave a comment to expand on the boilerplate template left by the review script, or I do. And I see I reviewed it. It is probably notable, yes, but the references need work. If there is insufficient guidance give me a shout on my talk page if you like, or ask more here, in this thread. Fiddle Faddle 23:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi TimeTrent. I've left a message for you on your talk page. I hope you can see it as I don't. (I'm wondering if I've inaccurately added a note...) Thank you for your help and patience! LauraMcAliley (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 Done and replied there. Fiddle Faddle 19:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Why did my article get denied

hello,

Im not that experienced in submitting Wikipedia articles, so would appreciate any feedback and/or recommendations. Dodger67, any help? Alanm321 (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alanm321. I assume you are asking about Draft:SweetLabs. Most of your article describes the products of the company in detail--and that's part of the problem. It's difficult to describe products and list famous users of the product without being promotional. If an article purports to be about a company, then it should refer to the company's products and services in passing, but the focus should be on the company: when/why it was founded, how it was capitalized, what its business plan is, how the company has grown and become notable, whether the company has patents, whether there has been significant competition, legal setbacks/victories, etc. Sometimes it's not only a tone of advocacy, but the content of the article that needs re-thinking. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for article feedback

I would like to expand an article I wrote about activist Michael Petrelis (carrying a "needs sections" banner since May). I have been drafting the expanded article in a user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malcom_Gregory_Scott/sandbox_Petrelis_sections. Is this article ready to move to main space? Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks ready to me (apart from some reformatting of the headings - we use sentence case, see WP:HEADINGS). But as the article already exists, moving the draft to main space is not the way to do it (otherwise the existing edit history will be lost). You should edit the existing article to incorporate your material.--ukexpat (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I reformatted the section headings using sentence case, and added the new content to the existing page rather than "moving" it, to preserve editing history. Now, I'm unsure how to remove the "Needs Sections" template from the article. Can I remove the banner myself, and if so, how may I do so? Also, I see the article belongs to 8 hidden categories, some of which seem to suggest needs for improvements. I followed the links to explanations of the hidden categories but the ones that concern me most are beyond my novice understanding of WP. Do I need to take any action regarding the hidden categories? Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Malcom Gregory Scott. Since you have resolved the issue regarding the lack.of section headings, simply remove the tag from the article, which is created by the very first line of the wikicode. Just erase it, with an edit summary explaining why. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

see contributions according to change status and time?

My watchlist page shows changes to watched articles in newest-first order, with a green bullet at the start of the line if they've been changed since my last visit. That's great, and I check it regularly.

I also watch my recent contributions, depending on how much time I have for doing so. But there, the only way to see if a page has been changed since my contribution is that the most recent one says Current. Since I often edit the text of a whole article or long section(s) of it, saving after each section or set of changes, there are many more listings on the page than editing sessions, and so I skim down the page. Unlike the watchlist's green bullet, the "Current" label can be anywhere in the width of the main text, so it's easy to miss. As a result, I fairly often hit a page title that I don't remember seeing in today's look at the list and that isn't labeled "Current", and so I have to scroll back up the page, and often previous pages, to check its most recent appearance for "Current".

Is there a way to show contributions that would indicate whether an edit is or is not the most recent edit to the page? I realize I could add all my contributions to my watchlist, but that would make it much too cumbersome to be of any use. Thnidu (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thindu, at the top of your contributions page are a number of filter options. One of them is Only show edits that are latest revisions you can filter by this and it will only show your contributions that are the most recent edit to an article. Nthep (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Nthep, thanks, but you've answered the wrong question. I'm looking for, as I said, a way to see if a page has been changed since my contribution. The filter you mention is the opposite, showing only pages that have not been changed since my edit. (BTW, my user-ID is Thnidu, not *Thindu (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about the typo. Your question was Is there a way to show contributions that would indicate whether an edit is or is not the most recent edit to the page?. Finding if your contribution is the most recent is easy. If you want to know the converse then it's probably possible by changing you CSS. I don't have enough knowledge of CSS to give you a solution but if you ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) someone who watches that page can probably come up with a solution for you. Nthep (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Nyarlaaaaghhhh!!. (And don't feel bad. My wife never could spell it either. ;-) ) --Thnidu (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

How can I put back submission reviews in the script of my Edit page?

Lucie-boyer (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lucie. Don't worry - Darylgolden has already done this for you. Yunshui 雲水 09:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

CSD log

I just nominated an article for CSD, but then it is not said in my CSD log. How must I enable the CSD log and I have Twinkle on already. Must I do anything to the preferences. I hope for a speedy reply. If you have replied, please ping me or leave a teahouse talkback template on my talk page. Thanks! Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 09:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nahnah4. You'll need to go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and tick the box that says "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" if you haven't already. Twinkle usually creates the page itself; I'm not sure whether your precreated page will work (although I can't see why it wouldn't). Yunshui 雲水 09:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Yunshui. My precreated page still worked. Thanks for telling me what to tick. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 09:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

How can I retrieve an article I created earlier today?

I created an article this afternoon using the Article Wizard, but didn't finish it. I wanted to proofread it and I still needed to insert the references. However, I couldn't do that at the time so I hit the save draft button and logged out. Now I have no idea as to how to find my rough draft.98.179.213.88 (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you log in again, and pick "Contributions" from the top of the page, it will give you a list of all the edits you have made, with links to the pages you made them on, so that should iclude your draft. --ColinFine (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Regrettably the user has nothing in their contributions record save for this question. The only mechanism is to use the search function, and to try to guess things like title and the space the article was saved into. Given more clues we can help, but we need more to go on, please. Anyhtinhg will help us, but we need something! Fiddle Faddle 09:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Assistance for a newcomer

Hi everybody! I wrote my first article a few weeks ago and submitted it. It was speed deleted and I was invited to visit the teahouse. I believe the speed deletion was more or less a standard procedure, maybe also because of the clumsy way I approached (sorry!). But I’m willing to learn! Regarding the article (again in my sandbox): it is about Global Rockstar, a start-up based in Vienna, Austria (where I live), active since a couple of years. It is active worldwide. I am indeed an acquaintance of one of the founder, but I have no connections to the company. I wrote and researched the article myself, including the references. Based on what I've found on Wiki about other start-ups, I believe it is not to soon to feature this one. Some references from national and international media are very strong (IMHO), others seem to be the result of press releases. I used both, unsure what to keep and what to discard. Could someone assist me with the next steps? Thank you! Monimel (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Monimel. I've reviewed the article you created in your sandbox, and while it's quite good, there is still a risk that the article would not likely survive since the references may not go far enough to show us that this group is notable. You'll need a few high-quality, preferably secondary sources (e.g. news articles) that are independent of the subject to attest to its notability and significance. So things like iTunes and Alexa could be used as primary sources, but don't really help establish notability. You do have three references that seem to be quite useful though:[3][4][5]. I'll let a few other editors weigh in on whether this article has enough quality sources.
On another note, I hope you don't get discouraged. Most editors on Wikipedia probably get their start making edits to already existing articles. It's a pretty high bar to come here and immediately start creating new stuff, but you're clearly headed in the right direction. Keihatsu talk 14:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Keihatsu, I was unsure about the references too, I'll wait for more experienced feedback! And thank you for your encouraging words… I will keep working on this article - it's a challenge - but I realize now I need more "practice" with editing. I will work in that direction too! Monimel (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have given you extra feedback on your talk page. Fiddle Faddle 10:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I can NOT make a picture appear in my Infobox on my page!!Please please please help!! I am using a racecar driver template — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy Praytor (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Tommy. I see you have managed to get a photo there. But my advice to you is that before you worry about photos, you find and add to the article the references to independent reliable sources that it lacks, because if you don't the article will never be accepted and you might as well not have bothered. You probably ought to read our policies on conflict of interest and autobiography too. --ColinFine (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

How to create an "about" box in upper right corner of page?

I see these boxes on almost every page but I can't work out how to build one into my page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:RootMetrics

What am I missing?

Thanks 18:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rootmetrics1 (talk • contribs)

Like that you are seeing on Apple Inc. article? We call it 'infobox'. You can learn about it by visiting this infobox company template. Abhi (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
That is it. I will check out the inbox company template now. Thank you.

19:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rootmetrics1 (talk • contribs)

Okay, I got most of the way - could you tell me why the products list and homepage are not appearing in the box? also, how do I add a logo? Specifically, where does the image need to be stored?

Thanks Rootmetrics1 (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:RootMetrics

Rootmetrics1 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In most circumstances, you cannot add a copyrighted company logo on a Draft: page. Get the article accepted first, then add the logo later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I also fixed the other infobox problem for you. Check the article history for details. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Got it. Thank you for the clarification.

20:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rootmetrics1 (talk • contribs)

I saw that you fixed it. Thank you very much.Rootmetrics1 (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
There some additional problems - your user name is in breach of our user name policy, please see WP:CORPNAME. You should create a new account with a name that represents you as an individual, not the company. You also appear to have a conflict of interest, so please read WP:COI. Finally, we already have a RootMetrics article (I just moved it from Root Wireless).--ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

All I did was paste in my BIO into the sandbox, Is that why it was not taken?

I did plan on writing my stuff in it. When I used my BIO, I thought that maybe I ought to input a listing under my name first and then do one about my film company CLEARVIEW FILMWERKS. What do you think?Clearview Filmwerks (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Your submission was blank. You are welcome to write something there and click the "resubmit" button and it will go back into the reviewing queue.
However if you are thinking about writing about yourself or your company, please note that you have what we call a conflict-of-interest. Wikipedia is designed on the idea that neutral, independent volunteers write and edit articles, rather than the subjects of the articles themselves. Writing in an encylopedic style about a subject one has a close connection to it hard, and generally discouraged. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before proceeding.
Also there is the question of notability. Wikipedia does not aim to have a page on every business that has every 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 probably ever had an article on your company. So, therefore, before a page on this specific company can exist, an Articles for Creation 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". --LukeSurl t c 15:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I was going to answer this, but LukeSurl already said almost everything I was going to say. One thing I have to add: If you still decide to continue, you should read User:Yunshui/Article creation for beginners; it's a good guide for new editors. Also, you should change your username here since company names aren't allowed as usernames on Wikipedia. --Jakob (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Collapse infobox

Is there someway to hide and unhide infoboxes as we do 'Contents' table? -- Sriram speak up 14:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe I'm right in saying that it's possible to create a collapsible infobox using the {{hidden}} template, but unless someone has already put the syntax for that in place on a given page, I don't believe there's a way to collapse any particular infobox you come across. Yunshui 雲水 14:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
So, how does someone put the syntax? And can that 'someone' be anyone or should it be admins? -- Sriram speak up 14:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you specify which infobox in which article you would like to make collapsible? --LukeSurl t c 15:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Nothing specific for the time being. I was just curious. -- Sriram speak up 15:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Problems with cite tool on a paper in an edited book (conference proceedings)

I'm trying to add a reference to the article on Rapid Application Development As I almost always do I'm starting with the cite tool in the standard editor. I keep getting an error. The tool generates a reference but the author's name is a red link for some reason. BTW, it's not a standard reference, it's to a book which is really the proceedings of a conference but it has an ISBN number so I thought best to just treat it as a book. So there is an editor as well as an author of this particular paper. The author is Fred Brooks and it's the first reference in the article. There is also another version where I tried just redoing everything in my sandbox. Either way I end up with either the name of the article or the author in red. The way it is in my sandbox is the way I initially did it in the article then in the article as it stands I was mucking around trying to fix it with no luck. MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello MadScientistX11 and welcome to the Teahouse. The ref list you get when using the toolbar is only a small part of all the things that can be put in a cite book ref. The complete list is at Template:Cite book. This way you can pick the parts that apply to your publication. The name appears in red because the ref is trying to link to an article/page (about the author, book or editor) on the Wikipedia that does not exist. Just skip the authorlink1. Best, - W.carter (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Btw, I fixed the ref in the article. Cheers, - W.carter (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I get it. Thanks and thanks for fixing the ref! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

can I change the title of my own article?

I created my first article this morning, but I'm not satisfied with the title I gave it. Can I go back and change the title of my article? Or should I just create a new article, but with the same content, with the title that I want? Macdiesi (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Macdiesi. We rename articles by moving them to a new name, which is described at WP:MOVE. Your account isn't yet autoconfirmed, so you don't yet have that power. Please tell us the new name, and someone can do it for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, Macdiesi, please don't "create a new article, but with the same content". That is called a "cut-and-paste move" and is a Bad Thing. :-) If you tell me what title you want Jim Patton (brewer) moved to, I'll move it. Deor (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Background info on me and the "Siduri Project"

Hi, my name's Jim, I have three accounts on Wikipedia, each with a specific purpose:
Account 1. User:Wiki-proofer-and-tagger
This account I primarily use to improve the text-based content and structural content of Wikipedia, primarily focused on the Epic of Gilgamesh, Siduri and related Wikipedia pages.
Account 2. User:Siduri-Project
This account I exclusively use for the "Siduri Project" an exciting new project aimed at improving and protecting Wikipedia, starting with the Siduri page.
Please note the Wikipedia "Siduri Project" is currently on hold due to regulatory concerns regarding the use of Creative Commons multimedia on Wikipedia and whether this might violate "original research" regulations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Siduri-Project
Account 3. User:Gilgamesh-for-the-World
This is a sandbox account created as a Siduri Project "test page" so anyone in the world could safely beta-test putative improvements to the Siduri page, without incurring any editorial and/or administrative wrath (the Siduri Project has a "no wrath" policy) should they make a mistake. This project and hopefully everyone involved with it are here to help improve and protect Wikipedia.
I am going to make mistakes, our contributors are going to make mistakes, you, if you decide to help this effort, you are going to make mistakes. We want mistakes. Because mistakes mean you are trying to do something good, and that thing, that desire to help Wikipedia, we never want to snuff that out. We encourage you to keep trying, but keep your efforts limited to the Siduri beta-testing page (Gilgamesh-for-the-World) until you know that it works, prior to full release on Wikipedia; essentially a beta-testing area.
I also run SidurisAdvice.com, a non-profit dedicated to publicly hosting ancient and rare texts, specifically focused on Siduri, the Epic of Gilgamesh and ancient brewing technology (I'd love to know what Mesopotamian beer would have tasted like).
I also have a number of other Siduri/Gilgamesh related projects at various stages of development, but the Siduri Project is one of the most exciting with regards to its transformative potential, if successful, for improving and protecting not just one Wikipedia page, but all of Wikipedia. If you've had a bad experience on Wikipedia, join the club, so have I. But I ask you remember the reason you came here in the first place, the desire to make Wikipedia better. As Wikipedia continues to grow as our virtual portal for all knowledge, you want to do your part, however small, to make the world a better place.
Best, Jim

Siduri-Project (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_226&oldid=1141877613"