Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 271

Archive 265

←

Archive 269

Archive 270

Archive 271

Archive 272

Archive 273

→

Archive 275

Draft Elizabeth Martin Artist

I have had my draft declined. I have been in and edited correcting the way I cite references. I really don't know what to do next I saved the page does my editing automatically mean that you will re-look at my submission or do I have to do something else. Also I am dyslexic, not so bad but I often cant see things, there is an error in my editing and I just cant see where it is. I would also like someone to tell me how my editing is and what I need to do further. Plus sorry for so many questions but when I log in to my user name Karasaba it says that it may not exist so the only way I can find my draft id by using emails from you. Thansk Karasaba 21:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karasaba (talk • contribs)

Hello Karasaba, please ask us as many questions as you like! We enjoy answering questions.

Editing does not resubmit the page, so to resubmit the page, please add {{subst:submit}} to the top of it. Draft:Elizabeth Martin is the page in question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Karasaba (talk · contribs), Looking at the draft article, the problem is that the artist is known only regionally, and apparently does not have work in major museums. I've just read the McBride thesis; from it, I think that some others of the group (Beeton & Sutherland & possibly Richards) would more easily meet the notability standard. The criterion for acceptance of an afc, is likely to be kept at afd, and I think Martin will be borderline. I will accept it if you like, but it may not stay in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I really think her work deserves a Wikipedia page. She did extraordinarily well as an artist and made a living she sold quite widely I saw her ceramics on Gardening Australia once when the showed someones garden, and I am looking for the art book where she is listed as an Australian artist. I would like to add a photo of her but dont kow how.Karasaba (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

My article was selected but much meaningful material was deleted

As a newcomer, wanting to reference everything I quoted so that it would be the description of others commenting about my achievements,I found that I ran afoul of copyright issues. However, now the material is "bare bones" with a reader learning little about me and my lifetime contributions to medicine and science unless they go to the references. How do I reverse this decision?

Should I delete the references and redo the narrative in my own words (not just paraphrasing)? What do I do about honors or award? Do I list them or describe in the text?

Also I was asked to include material or names that could be found in Wikipedia.

I WELCOME ANY AND ALL CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS!

Kurt J. Isselbacher KJI7258Kisselbacher (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kisselbacher,

Congratulations on creating an article. In terms of reversing a decision that has left the material as "bare bones", this may not be advisable given that you ran into copyright issues. Copyright violations would likely be removed by other editors. Reading Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted_material_and_fair_use may help you better understand what can and cannot be incorporated into the article.

Generally, you should avoid deleting appropriate references. If they are to reliable and independent sources, then leave them where they are. If they contain usable information, but a citation is not used in the article, it may be helpful to mention them on the "Talk" page so that other editors can more easily find good sources and use them to improve the article.

As a living person, it would be best to find sources that verify the awards and honors received. Listing them or describing them will likely depend on the number and significance of the awards. Some awards may merit additional discussion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "include material or names that could be found in Wikipedia". I'm guessing you're referring to internal links. The Manual of Style is a good place to start.

Lastly you should see Wikipedia:Autobiography.

Good luck, Becky Sayles (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kisselbacher. If the article you are referring to is Kurt Julius Isselbacher, then your choice or username makes it seem as if you are in some way connected to the subject. If that's the case, then I highly recommend that you read Wikipedia's "Plain and simple conflict of interest guide" and "Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest". COI editing is not prohibited on Wikipedia, but there are some limitations placed upon the kinds of edits you can make. If there is no COI, then you might consider changing your username to avoid giving others that impression. Also, I noticed that a large number of edits to the article are being made by User Kji7258. Kji7258 is what is known as a "single purpose account", this in combination with the use of "KJI" in the username once again could lead others to question the neutrality of the edits being made and whether a conflict of interest exist. If this is by chance you as well, then you should read "Using multiple accounts" just to avoid any future problems. If it is not you, but someone you know who is also connected to "Kurt Julius Isselbacher", then Wikipedia's COI rules would still apply to that account as well. FWIW, the phrasing used in your original question really does make it seems as if you are "Kurt Julius Isselbacher". If that's true, then you really should avoid editing the page at all, except for certain minor edits, and instead make requests or suggestions on Talk:Kurt Julius Isselbacher. You should also probably declare your COI on both your user page as well as on the article's talk page (use the template "connected contributor". Doing so will make it easy for you to work together with other editors on improving the page. Just a suggestion. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Add photo

I am trying to add a photo to an article but can't get it to show. I first uploaded the photo to wikimedia. Lactobacillus melitensis (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lactobacillus melitensis: Hi. The reason the photograph is not showing is that you added it in the middle of a template (a bit of code that starts with "{{" and ends with "}}"). You can see that you did this here. It's great that you have uploaded this photo, as we strive for free content and this can replace the fair use photo currently in the article. However, first you need to remove your credits placed in the photograph image. We cannot use a photograph in this form. The credit to you should and will remain but on the image's information page, not in the photograph itself. For some of the reasons, why, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, Wikipedia:Image use policy#Watermarks, credits, titles, and distortions, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Credits and Commons:Watermarks. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyone I can talk to directly (online via chat) for help on making a page?

Hello, I'm trying to make three pages on topics I believe should be included on Wikipedia. I'm still not accustomed to editing on Wikipedia, and I'm confused on how to code/type in the format to publish the page correctly. Can someone help me with me with more basic instructions? Also, I already requested all three pages to be published. I'm not sure how often requests actually get made, so I'm still trying to learn how to write, edit, and publish on Wikipedia myself. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Dorseyaddie (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dorseyaddie: Hey Dorsey. A common way of doing instant chat is through IRC in the #wikipedia-en-help ^connect channel. If you click on "connect" there, you can make a username (you can use your username here) and look for me (I'll be using I Jethrobot as my username) on there. I'll keep an eye out for you there! I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Three-strikes law - NPOV-oriented revisions

Hi there, I am a relatively new editor and I just made my largest edit to date on an article that has NPOV issues: Three-strikes law. I would be reassured if an experienced editor could review my edit, and let me know if there are any points where I should have done something differently. There are a lot of issues that I am only beginning to tackle, so any sort of advice to do with this article would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, --Sennsationalist (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sennsationalist thank you for coming to the Teahouse. I have to admit that I have not seen such tactful, sensitive and accommodating editing on Wikipedia . You are doing a phenomenal job in editing by making small changes, one at a time because this provides good documentation to support your editing. At this point it doesn't even look like anyone has a problem with your editing. I went to the talk page and found plenty of drama. The talk page isn't really discussing the article, but instead contains lots of editorials about the subject. If I have any suggestions at all, it is just to include any information you can in your edit summary and cite any Wikipedia policies to support your edits. Wow! For a new editor you really have a knack for editing. I really admire how you're handling the situation.

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sennsationalist, I'm new too. I went and looked at your edit. Not knowing much about Wikipedia yet, just from the standpoint of someone who has written lots of research papers and reports, that was good stuff. I'm assuming that political issues attract people who try to delete and mess with articles, but seeing your objective edits was really nice. I also like Bfpage's kind response. I'm glad that people are helpful on here. Eileen JA (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bfpage and Eileen JA for the encouragement. I will try to continue to make good edits to this, and other articles in the spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I love the core concepts of the Wikipedia ideal, and hope that I can help make them a reality :) --Sennsationalist (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

posting a picture

how do i know whether the picture i want to upload is free license and allowed to be posted? 137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your question. A good rule of thumb is that if you found it on the Internet, you probably can't use it. A good place to search for appropriate images is Flickr, where if you see that an image has been released under a Creative Commons license that allows for commercial use and modification, you can use it. They even have an advanced search feature to identify such images. Also, just to let you know, you do need to create an account to upload an image. Let me know if you need help with anything! I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

its pretty clear now, i cant just put pictures randomly to an article. thank you for the respond, appreciate very much. also thank you for the recommendation to flickr. it was really helpful! 137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits to a biography keep getting reverted back to the original

Hi Teahouse,

I am in consultation with the subject of a biography and have made changes to his entry. (I have always been transparent to say that)

My edits keep getting reverted back after a month (or so) by one particular editor. I have tried to understand why so that I can take on board the feedback, through the article's talk page and through WikiProject Saudi Arabia - but no one has reverted back.

I'd like to know either how I can contact someone to give me advise on the changes, or how to ensure my changes are permanent beyond a month, since I am relatively confident we have adhered to guidelines.

The page in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_bin_Salman_Al_Saud

(talk) 11:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi LimelightME and welcome to the tea-house
Firstly, as you are "in consultation with the subject" you should read our guidelines on conflict of interest before making any further changes to that page
The principal problems with your changes appear to be:-

1. You are adding unsourced information
2. You are removing existing references
3. You are adding external links in the body text (Please read about external links here)
4. The references you are adding are bare URLs, not detailed references

Your last version of the page has about 3933 bytes of text and 5 references, whereas the current version has 2065 bytes of text and 9 references - so in rough terms, your version is twice as long and half as referenced.
Many of your statements, such as "he ranked among the top ten students", are the sort of claim that needs a reliable source to back them up, while some editors might see this as trivia.
Please read Help:Referencing for beginners on how to insert proper references, rather than bare URLs.
I would also suggest that you make your edits incrementally, rather than en-bloc, so that, if an editor disagrees with a pert of your changes, this can be reverted in isolation, rather than reverting everything en-masse. - Arjayay (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply and time. I have wanted to be completely transparent in terms of COI. I'll take on board your points in all regards. Again, many thanks.

How many redirects is too many?

Hello, I'm preparing for my first major edit of a page: "Sexual abuse of people with developmental disabilities". I am going to request a renaming of the page to "Sexual abuse and intellecual disability", to make it more accurate and concise ('Developmental disability' includes some people with no intellectual impairment). There are many terms for intellectual disability, and even the term 'sexual abuse' is controversial, with some preferring the term 'sexual violence', or specific terms such as 'rape'. I realise I'll have to create redirects to the new page (if they don't exist already), but I'm not sure how many of the combinations of the different terms I should create as redirect pages, as they are potentially very numerous, not to mention all the capitalisation options etc. Any thoughts? Crinoline (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Crinoline, welcome to the Teahouse. There's an essay on this, Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. Meanwhile, over at the official guideline page Wikipedia:Redirect, the only item that seems relevant is "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself". So for example if Wikipedia could plausibly have an article "Rape and intellectual disability" in addition to your proposed article "Sexual abuse and intellectual disability" (I assume this is what you intend, your message above has a typo), then you should not create a redirect at "Rape and intellectual disability". (Although personally I don't see that we need a separate article on each, but that's an example.)

Don't go wildly over the top; a few different capitalisations might make sense for redirects, but every conceivable possible typo would be excessive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Demiurge1000! Clearly I need to hone my proof-reading skills. It sounds like I can pretty much go for it with the redirects. To do all the combinations I can think of would require up to 48 redirects, not including any alternative capitalisations etc. It seems like a lot to me. I'm wondering if the search facility on Wikipedia might still be able to find the article without me putting in every possible combination. For example, if someone searches for 'people with developmental disabilities and rape', would a redirect from 'rape and developmental disability' allow the original article to appear in the results? Crinoline (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Crinoline. About the search function, yes! It's not exactly like Google, but it's pretty close. To use your example, if someone searches for "people with developmental disabilities and rape", your article comes up as the first suggestion. That's almost as good as a redirect. I also tried searching simply for "Sexual abuse disabilities", and your article was on the first page of suggestions. So even if there isn't an exact redirect, people can find it pretty quickly by using search + keywords.

Instead of lots of redirects, what I would suggest is, while improving the article itself, explore other related articles. Look for places in those articles where it's appropriate to mention the topic of your article. For example, we have an article on Disability abuse, and that article has a section on Sexual abuse. You could consider adding a sentence to that section on intellectual disabilities, with a link to your article. And the reverse. Consider whether your article could benefit by mentioning those other articles. The more links we have between articles, the richer the matrix of connections becomes, which is one of the best things about Wikipedia. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks Margin1522. I wasn't looking foward to creating that swarm of redirects - this looks like a much more sensible approach, so I will follow your advice. Crinoline (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

edit

There is a article about Muhammad wikipedia.I have to edit the title please help meBhootrina (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bhootrina, welcome to the Teahouse. It appears you ignored Template:Editnotices/Page/Muhammad when you edited the article. I have reverted your edits per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics and Q5 at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Titles are changed by moving the page but the article Muhammad can only be moved by administrators due to issues like this. There is consensus against the move you want. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh!thank you very much for the valuable feedback:)--Bhootrina (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Thank youBhootrina (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

700 sun concentration

Hi, could you please assist me to identify and clarify what is 700suns concentration, and hoe to obtain it, what is the easy way to reach it??? Thanks,

Robert. 213.175.160.33 (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Robert. Here at the Teahouse, we specialize in answering questions about editing Wikipedia. But I figured I would try to look into your question. I was not able to find anything about the phrase "700 sun concentration". If you are referring to concentrating sunlight, that can be done with a lens such as a magnifying glass. You may want to ask your question at our Reference desk, which specializes in answering general questions. If you do, please provide clarifying details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess this is about sun unit. If 1 sun is 1367 W/m² then 700 suns is 956,900 W/m² = 956.9 kW/m². You can ask further questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect move

An editor who seems to have been caught up in the spirit of moving articles to new pages has moved Trivandrum Rajdhani Express to Thiruvananthapuram Rajdhani Express Rajdhani Express instead of just Thiruvananthapuram Rajdhani Express. I have been unable to correct the mistake. Request more more experienced editors to help out. Superfast1111 (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorted, cheers. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the assistance but why was i unable to correct it? Is there a correct procedure for it? Superfast1111 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Moving the page back to its previous title required that the redirect there be deleted - only admins can do that. WP:RM/TR is the place to request administrative moves like this, or you can stick a {{db-move}} template on it. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Excessive number of edits

Hello, i have been noticing that a few editors on wikipedia have been using the save page repeatedly instead of show preview which allows an editor to cross check any mistakes on the article. While editing more than 3 times (since its your own edit) does not violate any policy, it puts user's like me who use the show preview button before the save page button at a great disadvantage. The result is i get only 1 edit to my name whereas others get far more and race ahead in the number of edits.

Take a look at Gandhidham Junction railway station. For example, on 7 Aug 2013, Praveenkumarchrg made 3 edits between 1717 & 1732 (1 edit every 5 mins) then 20 edits in 1hr 14 mins (1 every 3.7 mins) then 3 edits in 4 mins then 4 edits in 10 mins then 41 edits in 3 hrs 53 mins (1 every 5 and half mins) then a staggering 73 edits on 11 August, the list goes on and it is not just him there are others also as Kochuveli Yesvantpur Garib Rath Express shows.

Ofcourse people do make mistakes at times but this shows only how careless the person is. Is it possible to disable the save page button until the editor has atleast clicked the show preview button atleast once. I feel at a disadvantage for doing things correctly.Superfast1111 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Superfast1111. There is no requirement that an editor use the "show preview" function and I almost never use it myself. Some editors prefer many small edits, while others prefer to make fewer but larger and more complex edits. There is nothing wrong with making 20 edits to a single article in one hour 14 minutes. What matters far more is the quality of the edits. If the article is better when that editor moves on, then that is all that matters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello Superfast1111 and welcome to the Teahouse. The Wikipedia (as a whole) is not a contest between editors, the only one you are "competing" with is yourself. For the encyclopedia, it is not the quantity of the edits that counts but the quality. People do their work here in very different ways, each after their own fashion. Let the end result in the article be your guide instead of trying to do as many edits as possible. If you are ever to apply for something I'm sure other editors will evaluate the total quality of your work rather than just the number of edits. Myself I like to work a very long time with very many previews before I hit save. My happiness lies in watching the "green numbers" increase rather than the edit count. Just my two cents, w.carter-Talk 17:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Superfast1111 welcome to the Teahouse, like w.carter said there shouldn't be competition between editors to increase their edit count. Some editors use automated tools like bots, they can do vast number of small edits within a small period of time. When considering edits made by a particular user it's quality that really matters, not quantity. This essay might cheer you up.--Chamith (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not all Editcountitis. Some editors are on poor internet connections, which regularly crash, so repeated saves may be the only way to prevent their contributions being lost. Arjayay (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Arjayay for a very relevant additional explanation. Also, users who edit on some smart phones can not open large sections of text and therefore have to edit smaller sections and save in between. It only emphasizes that we all edit in different ways for a number of reasons. But the only thing that really matters is that we get the job done. w.carter-Talk 19:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with most of you that quantity is supreme although at times and i say this with personal experience that thought does get shaken badly. As for Arjayay's views, i'm sorry but i might be inclined to believe it if it would have happened once or twice but over a hundred makes that difficult but hey that my opinion. But part of the question remains open - Is it possible to introduce measures to ensure that the show preview button is used before the save page ?? Thanks for your assist guys. Superfast1111 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Technically, probably yes. Is it ever likely to happen? No. Forcing use of show preview doesn't achieve anything as you've no guarantee that the editor looks at the preview. All you do is introduce a two click save process where people will just click through the first one, let alone the effect it would have on semi-automated tools like Twinkle, AWB etc. Nthep (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up this topic Superfast1111 because I have struggled with it myself! I know you've been advised by the other Teahouse hosts that the number of edits doesn't matter, but I don't believe that's actually true. When someone applies to be an administrator, the number of edits that they have performed is certainly taken into account. Even if you were to apply here in the Teahouse to be a host, the number of edits that you have performed would certainly be taken into account. The number of edits can be linked to the number of articles that you create. If you create a certain number of articles on Wikipedia, your new article creations are automatically considered patrolled, partly based upon your high edit count. A high edit count can also influence how one editor interacts with another creating some type of pseudo-hierarchy where one editor feels as if they must defer to an other editor who may have an incredibly high edit count. I think you bring up a good point. (I am using my preview button!)

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nthep, the probability that it may not work should not be a deterrent to trying it out although there is a very famous saying artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity which supports your theory & my apologies if i sound too sarcastic.

Bfpage you have hit the nail right on the head. The main reason multiple edits annoy me is that i consider it to be cheating to get a larger number of edits for poor or substandard work because hey at the end of the day its the number of edits which count. As far as quality is concerned, last year i ran into a editor who thought Mumbai central image & http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surat_railway_station&diff=562828261&oldid=562347791] represent two different places. The result of that discussion was i got a block for edit warring, the other editor got a pep talk, presently has reviewer and rollback privileges and i am not talking about someone who has just joined here, it is a Veteran Editor III. So while individual editor's may consider quality is supreme, trust me it is not so. Besides if an individual makes the same mistake over a hundred times, i really wouldn't know what else to say. Superfast1111 (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Superfast1111: Just to shine a light from another direction: Since we currently do not have a tool to minimize excessive number of edits, would you recommend that editors who normally use preview a lot should save more often to "keep up with the competition"? - Just curious, w.carter-Talk 16:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@W.carter: No even if it feels unfair which is why i have written about it here. I do admit that at times i am sorely tempted, i don't use save page unless i have previewed it first. I just don't feel like doing it. But there is a way around the show preview button, an editor may not be allowed to edit the same page more than say 3 times a day. By the way, i have just crossed the 4000 edits mark. Superfast1111 (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Not being allowed to edit the same page more than 3 times a day! Sorry, but are you serious? Sometimes when I have a day off I dedicate that day to create or expand an article, and that takes a whole lot more than 3 edits! Would you call this excessive editing, or this? I would never have been able to promote that article to GA on 3 edits/day. Or should I have to apply for a dispensation from the 3e/d to improve articles significantly. As has been mentioned so many times before: We all edit in very different ways. I also made a quick search on the WP and found 7308 entries where editors are adviced to "save document frequently to prevent losing information" or facilitate if another editor might want to revert or alter a specific part of the text. Congratulations on your 4000. I have no idea what my count is, but I'm still happy. :) w.carter-Talk 16:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you feel three imperfect edits are better than one perfect edit ? Take all the time you want but do a perfect job. Anyway it was just a thought but certainly you would agree that 73 edits is a tad too much. Superfast1111 (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think either is "better", they are just different ways of editing. Most of us do not have your Superfast, Superhuman ability (yes, the recruiters from X-Men will have noticed you by now ^^) to see everything clearly the first time we edit, certainly not those of us who do not have English as our native language. I'm sure you are doing excellent edits, and you might feel wronged in some way when a not so Superfast editor makes lots of edits, but it would be better if you had this conversation with that editor instead of trying to implement rules that would be impossible to enforce or have unforeseeable consequences for editing on the WP. It would also be better if you aired this concern in a RfC where you might get more enlightened feedback, instead of prolonging this thread here. You might also want to point out that you consider that the "ranking" (or whatever it is called) system for some things here on the WP should be altered since the present system with edit counting may be flawed. If that system was altered, then everyone could edit the way they want at their own leisure. (All done in one edit. >Phew!<) - w.carter-Talk 15:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Change user name

An account was set up years ago for my daughter who is a professional singer. However we did not publish anything on the account until yesterday. We noticed that the user name has USER at the front of her name and I want to be able to remove that and change the user name to just her name.

Can someone help please as i don't want this to go live with that user name

Thank you (GeorgiaNapolitano (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, GeorgiaNapolitano. The easiest way is to simply abandon the unused account and start a new one. This is perfectly acceptable. If you or your daughter plan on writing about her as a singer, please read our guideline which discourages writing autobiographies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, the userpage is currently submitted for review at Articles for Creation. If it is accepted by Articles for Creation and thereby becomes a Wikipedia article, the "User:" part will be removed as part of that process (and you won't need to do anything). If it is ultimately not accepted and you subsequently decide you don't want to work on it any longer, you could if you wished have the entire thing deleted just by blanking the page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It appears the user doesn't actually want a new username. They want the page currently at User:GeorgiaNapolitano to become a Wikipedia article without "User:" in front. I see the page has now been submitted for review.[1] If it's accepted then it will be moved to just be called "Georgia Napolitano", but it looks likely to be declined. The user name is only "GeorgiaNapolitano". User:GeorgiaNapolitano is the user page for that user. All user pages have "User:" in front. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all so much for your help. I am new to this and will now re write the article with the guidelines. I also understand that once the article is published the user will not display on the page title. (GeorgiaNapolitano (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Userbox Help

Hello! I am asking about userboxes. I have a slew of them on my user page, but I do not know how to organise them. Currently, they are a jumbled mess. Thanks! Savissivik (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Savissivik! Welcome to the Teahouse!

There are multiple ways to organize userboxes. One common way is enclose them in a container. You can do that by adding this:

{{userboxtop|align=left/center/right|toptext=(Your header here)}}

...userbox code here...

{{userboxbottom}}

You can see an example of this container on the right side of my userpage. Regards, --Biblioworm 01:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Savissivik (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability for American artists

Are state galleries considered major galleries for notability purposes? I'm thinking of writing on an interesting artist / head of a university art department who exhibits regularly in Canada and Germany and who's in a series of state and university galleries. Thanks HeatherBlack (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome @HeatherBlack: When in doubt, fall back on the general notability guidelines. Also see This page. Don't worry about all the little rules and things along the way. A subject should have an article about it if and only if you have sufficient, reliable, independent source material to base the article on. The other notability guidelines can give you general clues as to the kinds of subjects that usually have that source material, but ultimately Wikipedia's core principles: verifiability and neutrality are king, and those core concepts require good sources. If you have good sources, write the article. If you don't have good sources, don't. I hope that clarifies things. --Jayron32 18:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for such a detailed response. I'll go ahead with it. HeatherBlack (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Theory Article

Hello, I'm currently trying to create an article about a theory based on some already notable theories. What kind of citations do I need to use and which their nature should be? Does the wiki of the theory's creator count as a source? Teo Anastasiadis (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Teo Anastasiadis, welcome to the teahouse. To establish wp:notability in the wikipedia sense then no, the blog of the person who created the theory is not what wikipedia considers a wp:reliable source In general, things that are self published such as blogs don't rank high as good wikipedia sources. Things that are good sources include articles in well known papers such as the Guardian or NY Times. Magazine articles. Books. Journal articles in well respected peer reviewed journals are great. Conference proceedings, etc. One important property for a good source is that it's independent and has some fact checking and QA built in. So a blog or web site that allows people to publish anything they want is usually not a good source. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

How to investigate a sudden spike of articles about X?

Hello again Teahouse! Today I've observed that several new editors (at least four) have created pages related to Rhetoric. They could be simply a team of academics who have decided to contribute to the encyclopedia and that would be a nice event! But how can I be sure that they are really different persons and not a case of sock puppetry? Articles seem good, I've not observed any misbehavior and I'm assuming good faith. LowLevel73^(talk) 22:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lowlevel73: Hi again lowlevel73. I think your question's premises contain the answer! Sockpuppetry is using multiple accounts for an improper purpose – like trying to give the impression at a discussion that multiple people agree with a side to unduly influence consensus; to avoid an active block or ban and so on. Since your question acknowledges that the people are creating articles that appear good, and no misbehavior is evident, the improper purpose requirement for sock puppetry to exist is missing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit, the definition of Sockpuppetry is now clear. :) LowLevel73^(talk) 00:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Big Z for Zillow

Hello,

There's a contributor who wants to add Zillow for "Big Z", as that's a phrase often used to describe Zillow by realtors (see this talk page post). I could not find it in mainstream news media or in a book - but it is used often in social media, including blogs on newspapers, albeit written by realtors or contributors, like this one from a Central Penn business journal.

I wouldn't normally consider this a reliable, secondary source, but I wonder if there's a different approach for terms often used in social media?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello CaroleHenson. It is interesting to take a look at the disambiguation page Big Z. None of the other listings are referenced. I find the various blogs and social media sites using "Big Z" as a nickname for Zillow to be very weak. But how strong is the sourcing for the other "Big Z" entries there? How likely is it that someone will search for "Big Z" with the intent of finding Zillow? The whole thing seems weak to me, but the standards for a disambiguation page about a nickname are lower than for an article about a discrete topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Yep, the sources seem weak to me, too. One of them is listed as an "article" in the url - versus a blog for other newspapers - so maybe that's one to go with. It does seem that some realtors do use "Big Z" a lot - and if the standard is lower for a disambiguation page, maybe the user or I can add that with the source and see if it sticks... and if not, let it go. Thanks for your input!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

A Way To Control How Image Appears On Other Sites

Hello

This is regarding HeadShy's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeadShy. When the image for the page is displayed on face book it grabs the middle of the image leaving out the singers. Is there any way to control how other sites display the image on the page? Thanks so much

Jack Jackballwiki (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jack. You have licensed that image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Licence, which explicitly says: "You are free to: ... Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material". So no, there is no way to control how anybody in the world uses that image (as long as they follow the licence conditions). That is what is meant by the licence you have irrevocably applied to it. --ColinFine (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Facebook mangles images badly (usually chopping off the top and bottom). The only way you can correct for this is to change the aspect ratio of the image, possibly by including transparent strips along the top and bottom. (The .png format has, I think, some sophisticated "viewport" features - but that is beyond my immediate expertise.)

However the image shows up quite well in at least some cases, for example HeadShy mention the Wikipedia page on their facebook wall on 3 September here.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC).

Formatting for references vs. footnotes:

I am helping a student in my class with a formatting issue. The coronal hole page. The references section is showing up above the different category tags, but the actual footnotes are showing up below them. Can you help me figure out how to fix this? Pfancher (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pfancher. It has ben fixed by Materialscientist with this edit. What he did was place the code {{reflist}} in the references section. For more information on using this, see WP:INCITE. Stickee (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Article declined

Would there be someone willing to help me getting an article accepted on Wikipedia? As the system is quite complicated, I am looking for help. What should I be looking at?ChrisDecroix (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The article I am referring to is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:European_dairy_association ChrisDecroix (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The formatting needs a bit of work, but that's easy to fix. The main problem is that the article doesn't have any sources - you need to verify the information there by citing published sources that talk about the EDA (but that do not originate from the EDA; that's quite important). Here's a good example to start you off. Find yourself a number of such sources, add them to the article according to these instructions, and then add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. It's a decent start to an article, and will likely pass, but you need sources first! Yunshui ^雲_水 15:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will take into account your suggestions and re-submit the article in a couple of days. Is it better to have it reviewed before by the Teahouse Forum? ChrisDecroix (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Not better, per se, but you're more than welcome to ask someone here to take a look at it for you, or to help you with the formatting (in fact, I've got a couple of minutes; I'll go and sort that out for you now). Yunshui ^雲_水 15:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The second half of the draft is more about the industry itself, rather than the EDA. But most of the information about the industry appears to come from the EDA. Which is entirely natural, it's the industry association! But from a Wikipedia standpoint, it's not so good to have all of the references in an article about the EDA coming from the EDA itself.

One approach to consider might be to split this into two new articles -- one on the EDA itself, and one on "Dairy industry in Europe". Such an article would be easier to link to other Wikipedia articles about the dairy industry. And in a separate article it would be fine for most of the references in "Dairy industry in Europe" to come from EDA. Whichever way you do it, it would be good for some of the statistics (number of dairies, number of people employed, etc.) to be also backed up by statistics from independent organizations like the EU or OECD. Also, as an example for the EDA article, maybe you could look at the article on Dairy Industry Association of Australia. That had some good information on the founding of that organization. If you could add some background information like that, it would be great. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Wiki project for school

Hi! I'm doing a project for school that involves creating or adding 750 words to a wikipedia page. Having a hard time picking a topic. There's a local case about a girl who was convicted with her involvement in a prostitution ring. Is this an acceptable topic for wikipedia? Nurmaghuor (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nurmaghunor! Welcome to Wikipedia!

To be suitable for inclusion here, topics must be verifiable by reliable third-party sources. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that a local event such as the one you mentioned would probably not have sufficient coverage. However, there's many other ways to help out here. Perhaps you could take a look at expanding some stubs. :) --Biblioworm 02:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Nurmaghuor: Hi Nurmaghuor. It is unlikely this is a good topic, but more importantly, it is fraught with problems because of the nature of what it is. This is especially true for a person not well familiar with our policies and experiences in how to avoid common pitfalls – sort of like when learning to swim, it's probably not a good idea to choose the open ocean on a rough day.

Why it's probably not a good topic in the first place is as Biblioworm indicates; that though you don't say very much about the topic, from what you do say this sounds very much like tabloid material, resulting from a single event, that garnered a brief burst of news coverage, and is probably not a notable subject in its own right.

But the reason I think you should steer clear—why it's "fraught"—is that we have a very important set of policies about articles on living persons which require that much higher standards be met than is needed for the typical topic, and much more so when the information is negative, such as the details you describe. An article with negative information on a living person needs to be excellently sourced through attributed inline citations to high quality, reliable, secondary sources and doing that, even if an article on the topic is warranted and those sources exist, is typically a very difficult task to accomplish for new contributors. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding to the excellent answers above, Nurmaghuor, we have a notability guideline for perpetrators of crimes, which states:

For perpetrators:

The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities.

The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

For good reason, prostitution has often been called the "world's oldest profession", and the vast majority of prostitution convictions are run-of-the-mill, and therefore the perpetrators are not eligible for Wikipedia biographies on that basis alone. Please use the shortcut WP:PERP to read the relevant guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

However, if you're still stuck for ideas, you may want to check out the list of requested articles or the list of articles needing expansion - both of these lists are absolutely massive; you're bound to find some inspiration there. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Look over my article

Hey everyone! I made a wikipedia page for a guy named Seth Jacobs who is a YouTuber, he's been in a couple indie films and a few other things. It's still waiting to be reviewed but I was wondering if someone could look over it and just make sure it looks good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Seth_JacobsKitkalix (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Kitkalix. No chance of being accepted at present, I'm afraid. In order to be accepted, the article must show that several reliable sources, independent of the subject have written at length about Jacobs. That means major newspapers, books from reputable publishers, websites with a reputation for fact-checking. It does not include any blogs, wikis, Twitter, social media, or any website put out by Jacobs, his friends or his associates. If such sources don't exist, then I'm afraid that Jacobs is not notable (in Wikipedia's special sense), and no article about him, however it is written, will be accepted at present.

Secondly, if you are able to establish notability, you need to read referencing for beginners, and understand that in Wikipedia, references are not a collection of floating links at the end of an article: a specific reference to a reliable source needs to be attached to pretty well every single fact or claim in the article. (The good news is that using the <ref>...</ref> mechanism, you place these in the text where they apply, and the software numbers them and displays them at the end for you.) --ColinFine (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kitkalix,Welcome to the Teahouse. Problem is you haven't cited anything within the article, instead you have provided references as external links. I'm not sure whether they meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards. If you don't know how to cite a source properly then you should check out Help:Referencing for beginners. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You will need to provide proof that the image is released under a suitable license. The full instrucitons are at [[2]] - basically you need to get teh copyright holder to email permissions-commonswikimedia.org with the declaration from that page (in the box) filled in. It should also include a copy of the image, or a link to the file. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC).

Article declined - how to improve?

Hello Teahouse! I'd love some advice on an article I wrote about a public artist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ralph_Helmick Comparable artists are included in Wikipedia. Does anyone have specific recommendations on how to improve the article? Hpwiki55 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hpwiki55, welcome to the Teahouse and sorry for the late reply. I think copyright violation is the major problem in your article. In Wikipedia you should write articles in your words, you shouldn't copy-paste content from other sites as it's is a copyright violation. The best possible solution is to re-write your draft using your own words. --Chamith (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi ChamithN, thanks for your response. I've updated the page and deleted the section that was under question. The reason given for the submission's decline was that it didn't adequately reflect the subject's notability, but I believe I've addressed this by providing links to vetted newspaper and magazine sources. Is it a good idea for me to resubmit the article as it stands? Thanks!

Distances between settlements #2nd attempt

I have copied the below from a recent archive and added another comment

Distances between Settlements

Please could you look at the Talk for Ludlow where there is a discussion about distances. I have been unable to find the correct guidance.SovalValtos (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that places can sometimes be much closer geographically than by road so it could be quite misleading if the type of distance is not made clear. I would think a straight line distance should be the standard. If road distance is substantially different that can be added. Anybody else aware of any guidelines?Charles (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Charlesdrakew has given some useful advice, but could a host try to answer both our questions as to whether there are any guidelines, and if so where to find them? If there are not, where would be the place to discuss what would be best? I do not think the Talk page of one settlement is the place to try and achieve consensus for something involving many countries and circumstances. Please helpSovalValtos (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, SovalValtos. I think that talk page discussion is excellent. I suggest that you discuss the broader issue with active members of WP:WikiProject Measurement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen³²⁸. That is the sort of thing I was looking for; now to see what can be made of it. It looks a bit daunting.SovalValtos (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Word count

Struggling to find the word count of Metallica_(album) that I have edited for the guild. I've been through the js script guide but can only see the byte count. Can anybody help please? Graham McCormack (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

According to this tool, it's got 3518 words of prose (discounting text in references, infoboxes, lists and captions). Yunshui ^雲_水 12:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Yunshui :) Graham McCormack (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple languages

I wanted tI was editing a page called Whose Daughter Is She? and wanted to link it to its french and german pages ( and . The French page is fine. But even though the german page is listed in the wikidata page, it doesn't show up in my list of inter-language links. How can I fix this? ubiquity (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ubiquity, welcome back to the Teahouse. I've just purged the page and the interlanguage links should be showing up now. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The article in question has been deleted as the creation of a blocked or banned editor, Ubiquity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That's too bad. I did a lot of work on that article, completely changing it from the original, finding references and so on. Is there any way to bring it back? ubiquity (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The article has been restored, and all is well now. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC).

Requesting a comment

Since Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek/archive1 ends tomorrow, would anyone mind commenting on it. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jakob: It ends tomorrow? Nominations run for at least 10 days, so there's still time :) I've never contributed at FLC, but I did provide some feedback that you'll hopefully find helpful. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@SuperHamster: Facepalm Sorry, I provided with the wrong link. I meant to link to Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Nuremberg,_Pennsylvania - which now ends in three hours. Thanks for commenting anyway, I'm taking a look at your feedback. --Jakob (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

How do I keep my articles that are important from being deleted?

How do I keep my articles that are important from being deleted? I made an article called Willits Town Center. It is pretty big and there is 2 large neighborhoods near it. It also has a courthouse and much more. That article was deleted even though it was very big. I did rewrite it and it did not get deleted that time. Why was it deleted the first time and not the second? Also how do I keep important articles I make from being deleted? Greshthegreat (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Greshthegreat, welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Notability for the main requirement. Willits Town Center was not deleted in the Wikipedia meaning of removing the page history from public view. This version was redirected to another article but the former content was still accessible in the page history. The redirected version only had one source and that was the website of the subject. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Biased page

Hello, I came across a very biased and soapboxish user page, telling about a "amazing" school. Is it acceptable to report it even though it is a user page?

Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 17:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is, per WP:CSD#U5. --Biblioworm 18:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing a section of an article

I have edited a section from an article titled Technology and Society, and some of the other sections needs citations. is there a chance for the article to be deleted ?WTFEL (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello WTFEL and welcome to the Teahouse. The article Technology and society has been around for quite some time now (9 years) so I don't think there is any danger of it getting deleted. There is a tag on it about improvements that needs to be done, and it is great if you can help edit it to that effect. Why do you ask? Your choice of word "chance for" indicates that you might want it to be deleted. Is that the case? Otherwise please continue your work on it, it is appreciated. :) I took a look at your edits, and you should read Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to write and insert the refs the right way. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and no I do not want it to be deleted. just to make sure so I can work more on it.--WTFEL (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to contribute to guild of copy editors backlog elimination - quick question

I have chosen an article I can edit and followed the instructions and placed my  Working tag but noticed that other similar tags have the editor username next to them. I can't find any instructions on whether I need to manually do this myself or if is automated. Can anybody advice me please? Graham McCormack (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think I've just missed that I need to add my 4 tilders (please correct me if I'm wrong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham McCormack (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Graham McCormack: Yep, all you need to do is sign it :) Should look like this before you save: {{Working}} ~~~~ ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @SuperHamster: :)