Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 251

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 245←Archive 249Archive 250Archive 251Archive 252Archive 253→Archive 255

Delete

Hi everybody! I think these two pages should be deleted: Alyssa-Jane Cook, Moira McLean. I don't think they are notable enough. Where do I go to propose this if I can? --DangerousJXD (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi DangerousJXD, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you feel that a page does not belong, you can propose that they be deleted. If you do so, the article will remain up for about 7 days. If nobody objects to the deletion, it can be deleted. If someone does object to deletion and remove the deletion tag, you will have to go through the articles for deletion process. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 22:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC) don't worry I'm a host okay i am going to delete okay so good luck with ur other questions (whoever wrote this is NOT me, k6ka!
Can you type that part after your signature again so I can understand what your saying please? You know, with grammar. --DangerousJXD (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The part after the signature was added by User:Girlrockforever1 who perhaps has not yet learned to sign her posts or how to format posts to talk pages. So that text can be ignored. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Arthur goes shopping, OK thought so. --DangerousJXD (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I proposed them to be deleted. Just saying people. --DangerousJXD (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, DangerousJXD. I have removed your proposed deletion from Alyssa-Jane Cook, an actress who has played several significant roles before her current job as a TV presenter. We judge the notability of a person in show business on their entire career, not just their current job. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, that's fine, I half agree with you on that anyway. Though if someone were to do the same for the other page, I would not agree. --DangerousJXD (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It's lovely to see the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle in action. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Huh? What's that? --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@DangerousJXD: Once a {{proposed deletion}} has been removed, you shouldn't re-add the template regardless of whether you agree with its removal. Cullen328 was considerate enough to explain his reasoning for removing one of the templates, but please note that such an explanation is not required to be given. Any editor who objects to the proposed deletion, even in bad faith, can simply remove the template from the article and the template cannot be re-added. There are certain exceptions of course, but "disagreement" is not one of them.
I understand how tempting it can be to request deletion for a page that you feel doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but I think you need to exercise a little caution when doing so. The "proposed deletion" template is, in my opinion, for articles which don't qualify for speedy deletion, but whose deletion would not be disputed by other editors at all. Have you looked at WP:BLPPROD? There are specific steps you need complete before adding this template to an article about a living person. Have you completed all of them? Step 4 says "Check the biography's history to be sure that it was created after March 18, 2010." Moira McLean was created prior to that date so I am not sure that this template can be used on it. Personally, I have come to learn that it is, in many cases, better to try and improve an article, then simply to go straight for the kill and mark it for deletion. Improvement may not always be possible, but it is best to give others at least the chance to discuss whether the article can be saved. A "proposed deletion" template means no discussion is needed, and I'm not entirely sure if that is true in this particular case. Once I nominated an article for deletion that I strongly believed did not belong on Wikipedia at all. Others, however, felt differently and actually improved the article in various ways that I had not even considered. So, if you really feel the article should be deleted, then I personally think it would be better to nominate it for deletion following the steps laid out in WP:AFD. Other editors might actually be able to find sources to improve this article too. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Never doing that again. --DangerousJXD (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: are you sure about that part where anyone can remove a proposed deletion tag? I've never heard that before and I've seen a few people yelled at for removing those tags without consensus at at AFD. Bali88 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Bali88: WP:CONTESTED says "To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from the article". --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
ColinFine - Oh okay, so you guys are talking about the speedy delete stuff, not regular AFD noms. That makes more sense. Bali88 (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Not quite, Bali88: there are three separate deletion processes. Speedy deletion, for uncontroversial immediate deletes; proposed deletion for probably uncontroversial deletions; and AFD for normal discussed deletions. See Deletion policy for details.
Wow! I had no idea there was a third. You learn something new every day! Bali88 (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sort order for authors' works

Hi all! I was just wondering whether lists of authors' works should be sorted in any particular chronological manner. That is, should they be listed from oldest to newest, or vice versa? My inclination is that more recent works should be at the top of such lists, but I might be wrong. Huxley G (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Huxley G: Hey Huxkley, thanks for your question. I've edited a handful of author articles, and as I recall, their works are generally listed from oldest to newest. That said, I don't believe there are any Manual of Style guidelines on this particular matter, so it's really up to you. If you're starting a new article, it's really up to you, but if another article already has an oldest-to-newest system set, I'd refrain from changing it because both are sensible options. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Echoing the greetings of I JethroBT, welcome @Huxley G:! Just to add something to Jethro's answer, there IS a manual of style guideline for this. You can find it at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works. The first section titled Ordering states: "Items should normally be listed in chronological order of production, earliest first." It also lists a few exceptions to that basic rule, but generally, listing is done chronologically, from the oldest first. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 19:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Ugh, the MOS always gets me. Thanks for the clarification, Jayron32. :) I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! I'll adhere to the style guide mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huxley G (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank You for your Help

Jean Lambert Tennis International (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)I was wondering if I used the Approach of a Biography, it would be allowed to write my Life Story...

Thank you so much for your precious assistance

Jean LambertJean Lambert Tennis International (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jean Lambert, writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. —teb728 t c 20:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to The Teahouse, Jean. If you meet the notability guidelines for athletes, someone can write an article about you. You can make a request at WP:RA and show that you are the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources with a neutral point of view.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
And it has been pointed out to you that you need to change your username, since it appears to be that of a company. Jean Lambert would be a good choice.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
You've been here before. So I see your problem isn't as simple as I thought. Good luck solving it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I am too thick for this? Sorry to be painful. I just want to get it right.

I had not thought about the urls all being different, now I have learnt they are, or that citations can be covered in different ways. I have just added about 50 links to about 5 articles so I will be thoroughly un popular if I do not cover them. It will take me several days to grasp fully which one to use. I was going to do this [1][2] but I noticed it might not work. so should I use <ref=dateinameIarticle>[3] Any body out there who can explain this in a few sentences I would be most grateful.Thank youSpikequeen (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ date:Name:Article
  2. ^ article urls…
  3. ^ http:……..

Hello Spikequeen, unfortunately it will take more than "a few sentences" to explain. But you can read all about it in Help:Referencing for beginners. You can also look at the answer I gave another editor a bit further down the page at question Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#citation_templates. It is also about references. Best, w.carter-Talk 21:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Hiya Spikequeen. If I understand what you're asking, these are two forms of the same thing. The first is for when you are citing a source only once. The latter is, you guessed it, when you're going to be citing the source twice or more. So, if you were going to use a source just once, it can just be <ref>attribution for source</ref>. If you are going to use it multiple times, however, you can give it a logical name at the beginning. Let's use a Wall Street Journal article as as example. The first time you use it, give a name, in the form:
<ref name="WSJ">attribution for source</ref>

The next time you want to use that citation to the same source, in the same article, you need only type:

<ref name="WSJ"/> (Please note the forward slash (/) near the end.)
The reference will then appear only once in the reference section, even if you use it many times. See this as an example of how a reference appears after multiple "named" uses in the text.

I hope to not overwhelm you but there really is something else you should consider. A naked URL is not very good attribution to a source. It's much better to provide details about it, inside of the ref tags. There are templates to do this but I won't get into that here. Just provide enough information so that, even if the URL goes dead, someone else might be able to still look up the source, either in paper (if a paper source) or an alternative URL. Using The Wall Street Journal again, say it was an article named "Maple Syrup is Sweet", published on August 1, 2014, was by George Harrison, and was at the URL http://www.FakeURL.com. You could type:

<ref>Harrison, George (August 1, 2014). "[http://www.FakeURL.com Maple Syrup is Sweet]. ''The Wall Street Journal''</ref>
Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interests?

Hello! I'm the recipient of a fellowship from the Vanderbilt Special Collections Library. As part of my fellowship, I'm supposed to learn how to edit/create Wikipedia articles and help train others as well. I have total freedom regarding the subject matter of articles I author but, my question is, if I want to write articles about Vanderbilt Special Collections and their holdings, is this a conflict of interests? I don't want to violate the rules against bias but I'm having trouble distinguishing the line. Any advice? Thanks so much! (Nikilada (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nikilada: Hey Nikilada. First off, congrats on the fellowship, that's quite an achievement! Second, thanks for asking this question before getting started. I think it's generally a better idea to focus on efforts to use the resources in the special collection to improve Wikipedia articles, rather than writing on the special collection or institution itself. Because you're currently being compensated by the institution, it might indeed be considered a conflict of interest to write content about it. That said, I think something you can consider doing is creating a draft in your userspace and asking a few editors (from here, for instance) to look it over and make corrections knowing your position. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Nikilada: Hey Nikilada. I believe that what you're looking for is Wikipedia:GLAM, which is an interface between wikipedia and "galleries, libraries, archives, and museums" Stuartyeates (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wondering what is Wrong

Jean Lambert Tennis International (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)I wrote an Article on my Memoirs in the Sandbox, explaining what as been my Life as a Researcher and Producer of Knowledge Systems over the last 20 years and I received the following message from Wikipedia:

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a disto...

My Memoirs Article is devided into the following Sections:

Introduction Personal Mission Knowledge Production Systems Developed and Deployed (32 of them are explained) My Manuscript

I do not seek any Publicity as my only Intent is to explain What has been my Life over the last 20 years as a Researcher

Thank you for being my Guide and Advisor

Jean LambertJean Lambert Tennis International (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jean Lambert Tennis International: Hi Jean. You got the message you did because the draft you have written is not really appropriate for Wikipedia, even if it's not in the article space and you're just working on a draft. You're not supposed to write about yourself or your work, and you're not allowed to publish original ideas here, even if you're not intending to promote them. I'd recommend putting this material on a personal blog, because I don't think it fits here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Jean Lambert Tennis International (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)I have used Jean Lambert Tennis International because I used to have "Jean Lambert" as a User and did not remember my Password
I tried to ask for it but somehow they did not recognized that it was ME, trying to come back into Wikipedia
So that is Why I had to use Jean Lambert Tennis International
I do not at all Seek any Commercial or Publicity...
I just want to be Useful and Show what as been my Life as a Researcher and Knowledge Producer over the last 20 years
How can I regain my User Name "Jean Lambert" without any complication ?
Thank You so much for your Guidance...
Most Respectfully
Jean LambertJean Lambert Tennis International (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jean Lambert Tennis International: You can use Special:PasswordReset to reset your password, which will be sent to the e-mail address associated with your last account. If that works, please do not use the Jean Lambert Tennis International account again. Again, I want to reemphasize that writing about your life as a researcher will not be useful to Wikipedia. I encourage you to consider more constructive avenues like adding reliable sources to these articles or helping to copyedit these articles. I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

JL--I think that sometimes people can be "unmeaningly" insensitive as to how they express themselves. When someone says "useful" they really should have said advance the basic principles of WP--a volunteer community effort. An article about yourself would be in most instances for us just that, an article about yourself. Some in WP feel that if that were justified then others would write about your life; and when I mean others it is someone that you probably do not know/or vice versa. It is equivalent to a gentleman's agreement. That is why there is an issue concerning people who are hired to develop an article. It really is not what WP wants to become known otherwise it would be as so many 19th century community whos who bio books that so many people may consult for genealogies. Despite the collegiate atmosphere that some may want to prevail in this environment, do not become over dissuaded whenever you do something and someone reacts in a very negative way calling attention that the additional "." in that sentence was tantamount to attempting to ruin WP for all coming time. Again, some people do not realize just how they come across to others--its part of the internet environment. I equate it to communicating with my deaf brother. Sometimes you have to say to them that, "Remember, you are the only deaf one in this conversation." They may not be aware that they are yelling. If they persist there really is not much to be gained of you start to yell back at them. Except, you might try to use the {{help me}} to get a third party involved that hopefully the other party might be willing to take note from. But if it does not work then--leave it be. There are those that might apply the rules as a convent nun teacher would hit the back of your hand with a ruler or smear the dig's nose into his mess--you have offended them. Those that are easily offended seem to find camaraderie in their ranks so people can come out of the wood work. Beyond that in the end of what you questioned makes it into some change in an article then you've served a WP purpose.66.74.176.59 (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

VERY confused

User Flyer22 left me a message on my talk page then her talk page. I am confused what they where about. I answered them but can someone explain what she was asking? Also gave me a link to a user she blocked implying she was going to block me, for what? I feel like I am being interigated. So confused. Only time I have not felt happy here on Wikipedia. --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That is an unusual message, isn't it. Reading through the messages on your Talk page and Flyer22's, I think you have responded appropriately - he (or she?) asked a question, and you answered it plainly without getting emotional. Flyer22 is a very experienced editor as he says, and apparently something caught his eye; only he can say what. Looking at his contributions, he seems to focus a lot of attention on reverting vandalism, unconstructive edits, etc. "Sock puppets" can be a real problem on Wikipedia, where one person opens many different accounts so they can unfairly influence votes and give the appearance of having broad support for their ideas. The more controversial the topic, the more of a problem it can be. So it is good that we have people like him looking out for such abuses of the system; without them, it would not work for the rest of us. Unfortunately there is no definite way to tell who is genuine. Admins do have tools to help search for this sort of thing (e.g. multiple user-ids all logging in from the same address), but they are not perfect either. So my suggestion, for what it's worth, is to WP:assume good faith, continue to be open and respectful, and edit to improve the encyclopedia. I am not an admin or even a particularly experienced editor, so perhaps wiser heads can offer a different perspective...--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
OOPS - just looked and Flyer22's user page, and found that she is female. Please read "she" for "he" in every instance above. Also, you might get some hint of the sort of thing she looks for at User:Flyer22#WP:Sockpuppet_watch. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
So she is acusing me of being a sock puppet, having multiple accounts and comitting vandalsm? Why would someone accuse anyone of this out of nowhere for no apparent reason? I didn't even know what a sock puppet was until you explained it just then, so how can I be one? I can't have multiple accounts because I only started using my phone's internet a few days before I became a Wikipedian so I wouldn't have had enough time to get kicked off or something then make another account, I don't have any "ideas", and finally, I have no history of vandalism nor will I ever. Just weird. --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
No, nobody has said you are a sockpuppet DangerousJXD. Something just caught Flyer22's attention and she became suspicious, and now she is trying to keep the whole matter open and clear. No hidden conversations, no secret agendas. Reading through her history, she has had to deal with a number of people who abuse the system like that. No doubt this is where she developed this habit of documenting it all. She has not mentioned (as far as I can see) any particular edits which are a problem although I see that a couple of your edits in the area of sexual health were reverted recently, and that is an area where Flyer22 specializes. It is also one of the controversial areas where sock puppets are more common. But nobody has suggested there was anything wrong about your edits; they were all treated as good faith. Having an edit reverted is not a criticism; it's a difference of opinion about what improves the article. In general, if somebody reverts your change and you disagree, the best thing is to start a discussion on the Talk page for that article and try to reach general agreement, rather than just putting it back again.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
How can I find out what this thing is? --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
DangerousJXD, if you're looking for any edits you have made that were reverted, the best way I know is to go to your Contributions page (link at the top of every WP page). This lists all the pages you have edited; if your edit was the most recent, there will be the word (current) at the end. If not, you can look at the History of the page to see what has been changed since. While you're on the Contributions page, you can click on "Edit count" (at the bottom of the page) to see your stats, including the number of reverted edits. But I don't know of any more specific way to list just the reverted edits.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to be daunting but if you do not "follow" the rules/procedures some people can become rather disagreeable and outright mean such as calling someone a sock puppet. Being the great- grandchild of an illegitimate child it takes more than just some ruffled feathers and accusations to get me to react to a sock puppet accusation. For some it is like the reflex of someone with battlefield fatigue except the Wikipedian may never had to occasionally bandaged where the bullets just whizzed by and cause heat blisters. If you sign-up, your work is credited to your user name and if you do not then it goes to your IP address. And if it has similar styles to others then you get credited if only by mistaken identity with the work of others. Dose not matter when it is for good credit but otherwise, not such a good feeling afterwards. One thing I can recommend is never edit when you are sleepy because if you attempt to save edits that have timed out you just might be accused of turning every "A" into a "#". I always though just what was someone thinking that someone wanted to change one character into another regardless just where it appeared in the article but everyone can have their reason(s). Remember, there are some people who believe that WP is just one character change away from ending the world as we know it.66.74.176.59 (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Alerts and notifications -- linking

How can I link to "thank you" alerts? I enjoy making a small collection of interesting occurrences on my user page. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: According to WP:THANK#What the feature is not, only the complementary user gets the alert and the thanks are noted in Special:Log/thanks. I think you might be able to link to the log, but it would only show who thanked you, not what the thanks was about. You might be able to take a screenshot if you really want. Regards. KJ Discuss? 09:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing Classes

To become a better editor do you have classes? On Line or off?Spikequeen (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey there Spikequeen and thanks for the message. At the moment we don't have that sort of thing available. There is quite a lot of documentation available though, so if you tell me what you're interested in learning, I'll try and point you in the right direction. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 09:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there is the Adopt a user process, which is kind of similar. (And there is specialized training for certain types of editing) --Jakob (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia UK do a great many in person training and editing sessions in a wide variety of places in the UK. Have a look around their website for more details. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

How do i add citation to data that is in public domain but not necessarily online or in a book form ?

Hi, I'm trying to build the wiki page for my village, the problem with this is that although i know most of the data to be true either through personal experience or through the government records displayed at the local village office notice board(data such as population, road construction etc., is usually painted on the notice board outside the village administrative office building), being a small village there is no authoritative online source to cite from.

For example i know that some of the villagers think that name of the village came from a religiously significant tree, but there is no authoritative website to quote the same. I also know the exact population but their is no known source that lists the population of my village as a single entity, but there are government websites that show the population of a much larger administrative division in which my village is a part

How can i add citation for things like this ?


Some random entity (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, User:Some random entity, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm going to divide your question into three parts: verifiability, original research, and notability.
First, the information that you are citing must come from a reliable source. Generally speaking, a reliable source is a third-party (not directly related to the information that they are publishing), published (made available to the public in some form), and has 'a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' (WP:SOURCE). Government publications are usually considered reliable; in this particular case, you might wish to see whether your administrative office building has published information elsewhere, such as a report available to the public or even a website. Please see WP:REFB for instructions on referencing using sources.
Second, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Original Research refers to 'material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.' Relating to this case, the villagers' thoughts about the name of the village will fall under original research. You must be able to attribute to a reliable source to add the information.
Thirdly, stand-alone articles on Wikipedia must indicate notability. The general notability guideline is that a topic is presumed to be notable if it has ' received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.' (WP:GNG). If the village in question does not meet the notability guideline, you might want to consider adding the information as a section in a bigger topic, possibly the district.
Lastly, Wikipedia:Your first article might be handy for you. Good luck, and remember you can always ask for help here or to any experienced Wikipedians. KJ Discuss? 10:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Just to complicate things, all settlements of village size (and even many smaller ones) are generally considered notable by default, so long as a reliable source confirms that the settlement actually exists. Thus they seem not to need to meet Wikipedia:GNG for there to be an article about them. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) says "Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just a small correction to KJ's excellent advice: Reliable sources do not need to be independent of the subject. In fact, for some data, we have to use primary sources. It's confusing because primary sources can't be used to demonstrate notability -- we need secondary sources for that. But if you're trying to source the population of a town, the town itself is a perfectly good source for that information.
If the information you want to include is on public display, you could try taking a photograph of the display. Depending on the data in question, that could be enough for another editor to verify the information, which is all we ask.
-- Powers T 12:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I am unable to add reference and sources. Please help in getting the page activate. I am even unable to upload picture. Nayab Sami 14:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I am unable to add reference and sources in the page. Please help in getting the page activated. there is a prefix coming as user in the stating of the title. I am even unable to upload picture Nayab Sami 14:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayabsami (talk • contribs)

I don't see any other saved edits from your account, so I can't diagnose your problems precisely. But I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Your first article, Help:Introduction to uploading images, and Help:Referencing for beginners. You might also want to consider enabling the VisualEditor under Preferences (then select Beta and check the box for VisualEditor) at the top right of the page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I think he is referring to something in his now-deleted contribs.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
@Nayabsami: Now that I see your deleted contributions, the problem is that you were using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Wikipedia is not for advertising. In addition, at this point in your career, you do not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, so you do not qualify for a non-advertising Wikipedia article either. If you would like to become a Wikipedia editor generally, you are welcome to put some information about yourself, your interests, and your contributions to Wikipedia at User:Nayabsami, but not self-promotional content. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you go to talk pages on mobile devices?

I cannot figure it out myself so can someone help me? -- Ababcdc (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't find a way to do it either. I haven't found a clear list of the features in the mobile app, but mw:Wikimedia Engineering/2014-15 Goals#Mobile contains the line "Tablets: test of talk page links and redlinks in stable for tablet users to provide data for article creation work and talk page usage on mobile", which I think means that talk page links and redlinks are not currently available. --ColinFine (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the ideal length of an article?

Obviously some people have more than others, and are of greater import. What is the ideal length? I am finding that the articles I am working on are naturally the same length, but I just wanted to ask. I just wanted to be appropriate. Can anyone help.Spikequeen (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Spikequeen, maybe the guideline on Wikipedia:Article size is what you are looking for. —teb728 t c 20:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks that is really helpful, thanks will study tomorrow.Spikequeen (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, something like the BBC One article. I remember seeing that on its talk page when some guy wanted to split it. Lil Vipt 19:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

My article was declined due to references? Would you please assist?

Malinda Gilmore......Article is titled Kevin Arthur Rolle18:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maliwilson (talk • contribs)

Hello, Malinda, and welcome to the Teahouse. Every piece of information in a Wikipedia article, and especially in an article about a living person, must be referenced to a published reliable source; and most of it must be referenced to sources which are independent of the subject. So, for example "has gained over 20 years of progressive administrative experience in various governmental, public and private organizations" in Draft:Kevin Arthur Rolle must be followed by a reference to a reliable published source which says this; and similarly throughout the article. (The reason for this is precisely because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia which anybody can edit: somebody might come along next week or next year and change the information, whether by mistake or maliciously. Only with a reference to a reliable source can a reader trust what is there). Please look at referencing for beginners for how to insert references. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Malinda, The problem is that you put your citations in inline external links with the cryptic text, “Link label.” I have converted the first two of them to proper references. See what I did at Draft:Kevin Arthur Rolle.
While I have your attention, on File:Kevinrolle.jpg you credit the photo to O. J. Rice Photography in Huntsville, Al, but you claim you are the copyright owner. How did the copyright get transferred to you personally? Ordinarily professional photographers do not give up their copyright. —teb728 t c 21:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Referencing

How do you reference a article? -- Ababcdc (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

For example, the when I tap "edit" in the references section of the article Mule, all that came up was
==References=={{reflist|35em}{{refbegin}* {{EB1911}{{refend} -- Ababcdc (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, Ababcdc. As you have found, all that appears in the references section is a few templates that make the references appear. The content of the references is inserted where they are used. If you edit an earlier section that contains referenced information, you will see that where the superscript number appears in the displayed page, the source contains something between <ref> and </ref>. That is the definition of the reference, and can be just text, but I prefer to use one of the reference templates, such as {{cite web}}. Please see Referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is the best place to ask that question? Nothingknewunderthesun (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nothingknewunderthesun, welcome to the Teahouse! The first place you should go to discuss an article is the article's talk page. But if there are not enough people monitoring that page, you could start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (not at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; I believe another editor gave you the wrong page). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I have a draft out for William Rothwell and his work with Organizational Development and Succession Planning. However I must not have sources that would be considered aligned with GNG. I am just wondering if that is all I need to fix. The references. I could simply delete those sources and places in the text they are referenced to. Or should I be changing more within this doc?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:William_J._Rothwell

Jaengerman (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jaengerman, welcome to the Teahouse. No, deleting unreliable or non-independent references would not fix the issues already mentioned on the draft page. You need to address the issues mentioned on the draft page, which in this case are a failure to meet Wikipedia:VRS because of not providing references to multiple independent reliable sources that discuss Rothwell in detail.
Of course, making the draft a great deal shorter may also help any potential reviewer to see such references more easily! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Swearing on Wikipedia

Hi. If I was to insert a certain word beginning with F into my posts what would happen? OUT OF CURIOSITY. Don't accuse me of something. Thanks. --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for such things as profanity and blasphemy. The encyclopedia includes that and just about every other word many times, in encyclopedic contexts. A lot of people swear in their talk page posts, as well. As long as the invective is not directed at another person, it usually passes without comment.
But you asked "what would happen?" What would happen is that you would mark yourself as someone incapable of having a reasonable discussion with other contributors without resorting to offensive language. What would happen is that your post might be the final straw that causes a contributor tired of the base level of discourse such language represents to leave Wikipedia behind for good. What would happen is that the chances of the encyclopedia being diminished by the choice to use that word are greater than the chances of the encyclopedia being improved.
Choose wisely. -- Powers T 23:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Your not accusing me of something are you? --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed LtPowers is not accusing you of anything. They merely answered your question. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Swearing depends on context. I invite editors to take a look at Fuck tha Police which contains said word numerous times. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
DangerousJXD It depends on the context. Fuck itself has its own article, so it's certainly not wrong to use the word in wikipedia articles if it is appropriate. If you are quoting someone who has used the word or using a song title that contains the word, go right ahead and use it. If you are discussing something with another editor on a talk page and you tell someone to "fuck off", that may not bode well for you. You should not use the word in that context as you may find yourself blocked. Bali88 (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor linguistic question

In editing articles, is there a certain tense that should be used when quoting or referring to positions of those cited? Should things be written as, 'he/she said' or 'Bob wrote' rather than 'Sally argues X' or 'Susie claims Y'? I figure if either is acceptable, consistency in tense used is the key, but thought I'd ask before I change things. Huxley G (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Huxley G I don't think it matters terribly as long as it's neutral and matches what actually happened (I mean, you wouldn't say "Bob wrote" if he said it in a speech). There are also subtle differences between argued, said, and claimed, so use the word that fits the scenario. For instance, if I was describing a criminal case, I would use "The defense argues...", if it was the defendant, I'd say "The defendant claims...", "The prosecutor alleges...", and "The witness said..." because those words more accurately describe what was happening. I like to mix up words instead of just saying "said" all the time. The only one that I've seen mentioned was "claims", because depending on the scenario, it can make it seem like you're doubting what they're saying. It just depends on usage. I use claim in appropriate situations. Bali88 (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I just realized my response was less clear than I intended. I got distracted (kids) and lost my train of thought. As long as it matches what is going on is fine. Like, if you're sure they're still arguing X as opposed to they just argued it at the time in the past, tense is no biggie. Bali88 (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

PAM HOGG CITATIONS

Hello I am doing my best at the stage I am at, and some strange problems have cropped up when I do the citations by hand. Obviously I know there are different ones for different types of websites, is there a page that can help. Also as she is prominent, I do not want any mistakes, so any ideas to get further help in the Fashion side of Wikipedia, would be great.Spikequeen (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Spikequeen, welcome back to the Teahouse. The introduction to referencing is a quick tutorial that will show you how to add references with an automated tool called the RefToolbar. If you want to enter them manually, you can read referencing for beginners. Adding references can be tricky, so if you still need help, feel free to come back here. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I almost forgot: If you want to help improve fashion-related articles on Wikipedia, you can join WikiProject Fashion. (A WikiProject is a place where editors can collaborate on a certain subject area. There's lots to do, but you can participate as much or as little as you like.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC):
Thank you for this. The Tea house is so helpful. In a week I cannot believe how much I have learnt. Found the cite and with time I am sure it will be easier.

I looked at the Fashion site so shall try to start helping them. Spikequeen (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hosts

What are hosts and how can I become a host? (I know that some of my edits are not helpful to the page) -- Ababcdc (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hosts are experienced users that answer questions at the Teahouse. You can be a host at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host start. TranquilHope (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

List of acceptable sources

I find looking for Wikipedia guidelines a nightmare. So, instead of searching for fifteen minutes, I'll ask the friendly folks here: Where is the list of acceptable/unacceptable sources? I ask this for general information but also because on the talk page for the movie "21," some-one wrote that "Asian Week" is not a reliable source, which surprised me.Kdammers (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kdammers: Hey Kdammers, thanks for your question. There's not really a hard-and-fast list of reliable sources that we maintain. The closest thing is that when there is a dispute about whether a source is reliable or not, there is sometimes a discussion and resolution about it at the reliable sources noticeboard, but those discussions are contextualized to specific articles and content.
What we do have are a number of guidelines by which to judge whether a source is reliable or not. These include things like:
  • Is the source, its creator, and its publisher independent of its subject?
  • Is the source appropriate for the claim it is sourcing? (i.e. context matters)
  • Does the author express opinions on the subject, and are they considered an authority on it?
Some projects on Wikipedia do maintain their own guidelines and lists of generally reliable sources for relevant topics (e.g. WikiProject Video Games has this resource). I can't speak to your specific circumstances for 21, but if someone challenged Asian Week, you should see whether it fits the criteria for reliable sources, and if it does, describe why. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Kdammers. That mention about AsianWeek not being a reliable source took place in 2008, and it didn't even start a discussion. It was just one IP editor's opinion. And there has been one brief discussion about the source on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where concerns were expressed. But consider the context, which was a controversy about casting white actors in a fictonalized movie based on a real life incident involving Asians. The writer of the AsianWeek piece does not appear to be a professional film critic, and we prefer the opinions of professionals regarding films. Millions have opinions on Hollywood films, and 99.9% of those opinions are not reliable enough for Wikipedia film articles. The source does not constitute in-depth coverage of issues regarding the film, but is a blog style opinion column tossing off a quick criticism and moving on. I will not say that AsianWeek is always unreliable. In certain contexts, it may be a good source for uncontroversial factual assertions. But the publication, now available only online, has had a reputation for sensationism regarding racial issues, especially in the time period we are discussing.
The broader issue is that Wikipedia editors need to be able to judge whether or not a source is reliable. Developing the critical thinking skills needed to evaluate the reliability of a given source in the context of the assertion it supports is something that every editor needs to work on. No source is 100% reliable in every context and even a horribly unreliable source like the Weekly World News is reliable enough for perhaps the name of its managing "editor" and the city where it is published. There will always be debate and disagreement about the reliability of various sources, but improving the quality of our sourcing is a goal that most editors share. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Just chiming in here on your question - it is suggested above that: you make a judgement call and have some decision-making 'right' to consider your reference to be reliable/good. After all, that is what non-Wikipedia editors do. Read the guidelines, even though they are excruciatingly long and detailed and full of exceptions. Then, importantly, be ready to defend your opinion that the reference should remain in the article. If it is considered a 'bad' reference by another editor they will kindly let you know, in polite circles. In not so polite circles discussions could get more heated. Some editors are so passionate about what they do they sometimes they forget that expressions of zeal can appear combative. Come back to the teahouse if things happen that are not mentioned in this message to you. Best Regards,
Bfpage (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Want to create a temlate page..

Hi there, I want to create a template page of a city.. As only the one city don't have template in my district..Please help me out as I am new to wiki.. Sunnyvijay (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, Sunnyvijay. It may help me to find an answer to your question if you could tell me the name of your district and another city in your district that already has a template used in its article. We can alter the already existing template by inserting information about your city to put in the article for your city. bpage (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I have added successfully. Sunnyvijay (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of an article I created

I want to delete an article I have created. Pl. help me in deleting that article. Sravani Krishnamraj (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Linking to wiktionary entries

If I stumble upon phrases which may be unfamiliar to the reader and of which no wikipedia article exists but a wiktionary entry - am I "allowed" to link directly to that entry? Ideally, the reader would hover over unknown phrases to see articles or dictionary entries without leaving the article he/she's currently reading. Thanks. -Truyopx (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Truyopx:, welcome to the Teahouse! This article states that links to sister projects, such as Wiktionary, are highly encouraged whenever it would be helpful to a reader. In other words, go right ahead! H:IW might be a good place to check how to format, cheers ~Helicopter Llama~ 12:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Unfortunately the Hovercards beta feature doesn't support wiktionary links, so one would have to open a new page for that. -Truyopx (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi folks - I've been editing WP for 8 years, but I've come across a new problem. In my sandbox, I separate potential articles I'm working on with sections designated by just one equal sign: = section head = Yesterday I found that the section edit links in the article I'm working on have disappeared -- not just the top level (one equal sign) but all of them (two and three equal signs). I've tried copying the section to another sandbox and the same thing occurs - no edit links for the sections. Can someone explain what's happening and what I can do to rectify it? Thanks! -- kosboot (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kosboot. I fixed it by removing an open {{.[1] Open tags can have odd effects on the following code so when something goes wrong, it's a good idea to look for open tags where it started to go bad. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, PrimeHunter! Now I appreciate those bot notifications of broken brackets or parentheses. -- kosboot (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Article Review

Hello everyone, I'm a complete novice and must admit I'm not good at wikipedia editing at all (or using this site in general! Eek!). I'm definitely interested in learning for my own benefits though. Lately I discovered an article in Japanese that didn't have an English page so I felt like contributing. However, the name for the title was blocked and could not be used so I was hoping to write a new unbiased and decent article and get it submitted. I wrote a sample in my sandbox. If someone could take a look (is that possible?) and give me some feedback, I'd really appreciate it! Thank you in advance!


Pondeponde (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Pondeponde, welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft at User:Pondeponde/sandbox is currently awaiting review under the Articles for Creation process. If a reviewer accepts it, that reviewer should take care of the remaining required work, which would involve requesting an administrator to unblock ("unsalt") the title. If a reviewer declines it, then you will normally be given further opportunity to refine and resubmit the draft (multiple times if necessary) to hopefully get it accepted. So there is nothing further you need to do right now, although unfortunately drafts are taking several weeks to be reviewed at the moment because there is a very large backlog. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey Pondeponde! I looked at your draft and made a few minor changes that I think improve readability. One issue I spotted is that one of your references links to a facebook page. You'll need to find another source for that information. I'll look again and see if I can find any other issues. Bali88 (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I suspect you may have an issue with notability and the reviewer may decline the submission on that basis. The sources that aren't primary (the company's website) only make very minor mentions of the company. That probably won't be enough to meet notability standards. You probably need to look for some additional sources. If additional sources aren't available, you may need to wait until they become available to submit the article. Bali88 (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Pondeponde: I've moved your article to the Draft space as this is the preferred location for AfC submissions. Don't worry, you can still access the page via your sandbox or directly at Draft:Kotobukiya.  Philg88 ♦talk 04:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Bali88, Thank you for your reply and help! I will look for more resources though some may not be in English. It's a bit hard to find primary resources on this article but I will do my best!

Pondeponde (talk) Pondeponde (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Pondeponde, foreign language sources are just fine! :-) Bali88 (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

New article on Hans Ris (zoologist, EM scientist)

Hey there, I found out that the guy who coined the term genophore, Hans Ris, who has had an interesting life (rip), does not have an article on wikipedia. I never created one from scratch, so I thought that maybe there are editors out there interested in this topic that would like to participate in writing the article. You can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hans_Ris . Currently I am searching for sources. Thanks! -Truyopx (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'm up for it. Mirror Freak 13:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hm, I submitted the draft for review, but it says "This may take several weeks, to over a month. The Articles for creation process is severely backlogged. Please be patient. There are 2633 submissions waiting for review.". D'uh.. :/ -Truyopx (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this sourcing sufficient?

Howdy! I'm working on creating my first article, but I'm running in to some sourcing issues for amounts. Specifically, I have a primary source for an exact amount (say, $2,123.96), but all the secondary sources I can find round it off ("over $2,100"). Would it be OK to use both primary and secondary as refs for the exact amount, or would it be better to ditch the primary source and just say the rounded amount in the article? Thanks, OrganicsLRO 14:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean, with the pricing. Do you mean your buying sources?Mirror Freak 14:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh no no, I didn't explain it very well. I'm creating an article about a charity fundraiser, which includes the amount of money raised during the fundraising event. I'm talking about sources which discuss the amount of money raised. The fundraisers' own website states the exact amount they raised, but several news articles about the fundraiser round that figure to the nearest $100 or $1,000. OrganicsLRO 14:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Just go with the average number I guess. For example, if they raised $5,684 then you could say that they raised over $5600. Do you know what I mean?Mirror Freak 14:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine, just wasn't sure what the best practice was in this situation. Thanks! OrganicsLRO 15:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey OrganicsLRO Primary sources can and should be used in articles. The part where it can be tricky is when it's a self-serving statement. How much money a specific charity raised could be perceived as a self-serving statement. However, if you prefer to list a specific amount as opposed to the rounded amount, what you could do is say "The charity reports raising $5,684 in 2014" instead of "The charity raised $5684 in 2014". That phrasing makes it clear to the reader that this is a self-reported figure and that they should take it with whatever reliability is appropriate. If you do that, I'd double source it--including both the self-reported figure reference as well as the secondary source reference. :-) Bali88 (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I semi protect an article?

I would like to know how to semi protect articles ComputerTechGuy (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello @ComputerTechGuy: and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse to ask this question. At Wikipedia, articles can only be "protected" by users with special tools that we call administrators. Admins will only protect articles for extreme reasons; generally only those articles where disruption, abuse, or vandalism cannot be stopped using any other means. You can read more about Wikipedia's policy on protecting articles at Wikipedia:Protection policy. If you feel that an article does qualify for protection under those policies, you can ask for an administrator's help at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 16:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does thanks User talk:Jayron32 you are amazing ! :) ComputerTechGuy (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Purge

What does it mean to purge something?Mirror Freak 15:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello @MirrorFreak:, and thanks for coming by with your question! Purging is the term for refreshing the page cache to display the most recent version of a Wikipedia page. Usually, pages refresh themselves (that is, purge) every time they are saved; sometimes there is a "glitch" that causes a page to fail to purge, meaning that an "old" version of the page will be displayed. Wikipedia:Purge describes how to manually purge a page when this glitch happens. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 16:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_251&oldid=1142564932"