Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 275

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 270←Archive 273Archive 274Archive 275Archive 276Archive 277→Archive 280

Protocol for pages that need major re-writes

Hi there, thanks for the invitation to the Teahouse. I love a cuppa ,,,, I flagged an article yesterday that was promotional and apparently written by the subject. What is the protocol for suggesting deletion, I.e. How long should you wait before PROD? Thanks. Mediavalia (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You should wait a while and see if anyone tries to clean it up, Then if there is no cleanup, Then maybe PROD it. Duonaut (talk | contribs) 17:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I just left a message on the author's talk page referring them to GNG and NPOV. I'll keep an eye out. Cheers.Mediavalia (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You asked - "How long should you wait"? - most periods on Wikipedia, such as WP:AFD are 7 days, to allow for people who only edit weekly, not daily. However, given that that particular editor has made 32 edits in 6 years 7 months, i.e. under 5 edits/year, you might want to consider e-mailing them, although, as repeatedly stated on the e-mail form, this will reveal the e-mail address set in your preferences to them. - Arjayay (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Mediavalia. The article in question is Lee Harrington. I do not think that PROD is appropriate here, as this person has received coverage in major newspapers such as the New York Times and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. PROD is for uncontroversial deletions only, not for articles where strong claims of notability have been made. Instead, I suggest that you try to clean up the article. You don't need anyone's permission to do so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, thank you and fair enough though if you look at the links they don't really refer to the subject and other links are broken. Also, it's borderline regarding notability unless I've misunderstood those guidelines. I will try to clean up the article if I can. Cheers Mediavalia (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Mediavalia. The two newspaper articles I mention do discuss this person. We do not use PROD in the case of borderline notability, as that process is for uncontroversial deletions, and cases of borderline notability are far from uncontroversial. Once notability has been established, not every single reference in the article needs to mention the subject. For example, I wrote an article about a notable person who fought for the Union in the American Civil War. He was taken prisoner by the Confederates in the opening skirmish of a specific battle. A source verifying the dates of the battle need not mention him by name, as long as another source states he was captured in that battle. As for the broken links, please be aware that it is not necessary for a source to be available online. Online sources are preferable, but linkrot sometimes causes them to be removed. Diligent searching often results in an archived copy being found at another URL. Accordingly, the presence of broken links alone is not a legitimate reason to delete an article. If you truly believe that this person is not notable, then the Articles for Deletion process is the way to go, which involves a community debate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. Great advice and info. Appreciate it. Best Mediavalia (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Splitting?

Hello (again)!

I would like to contribute to some of the pages posted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music#Discographies

Specifically, I was wondering if the "requests 'from'" would count as splitting a page. (Meaning I follow these procedures as closely as possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Splitting#How_to_properly_split_an_article)

Do I copy all the relevant citations from the original page into the new discography page? Or does it suffice to link the source article in the edit summary?

Is there a better template available than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Discography_list? On the page it suggests that the template be used for a discography heading, rather than a discography page.

Finally, is it acceptable to copy another Discography page to use as a template for the page I am trying to create?

Thank you! Rcoul064 (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Rcoul064 Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, according to that project page any requests in the "From" category "mean the main article has a disproportionately large discography that should be split from the article to stand alone". Normally, I would suggest that you post a new section on the Talk page before splitting off a new article but I think anything you find on that project page you can just go for it. As for the template, I think the key issue is how famous the band is. If (e.g., the Beatles) most of their albums also have their own separate page then you should NOT use that template. If most of their albums do NOT have their own page then that template is appropriate. BTW, I think the wording on that template is a bit confusing. The template sounds at first as if it's saying don't use the template if you are creating a separate discography page but on more careful reading (at least this is my interpretation) it's not saying that, it's saying the crucial thing is the individual albums; if they have their own page then don't use the template if they don't then you do. In any case I like your idea of using some other discography article as a model. Actually, one of the first pages I created was a discography and that is the way I did it. I looked at the Led Zeppelin discography page and used that as a model; I figured it had to have been edited a lot and I think it was rated very highly and was listed as a good example on some music project page a long time ago. Hope that helps; please reply back if it's still confusing; I have to admit I thought the template language was a bit obtuse myself. Good luck! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone be willing to review this article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jennifer_Fonstad

It's the subject of the article's birthday next week and I would really love to have the article up by then.Kathrynshourds (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, if you could avoid posting the same question multiple times, that would be helpful so we can centralize your help to avoid confusion. Secondly, I think you ought to address the comments already at the top of the page, specifically referring to fluff. We like prose to be "lean and mean" around here -- essentially, to the point with no extraneous fluff. For example, "She played an integral part in crafting early strategy with the Mexican government for NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)[7][8]. She actually helped to craft the transportation sector agreement, which includes many of the ideas that are still in place today." could probably be more neutrally and concisely phrased as, "She assisted the Mexican government in crafting strategy with NAFTA, specifically working on the transportation sector agreement, which remains in use as of __" (I assume the latter sentence refers to a component of NAFTA?) Anyway, I would take one more crack at making sure the article is free of fluff and stays to the point, and then resubmit. Great work so far, and if you have any further questions, let us know. Happy editing, and God bless. Go Phightins! 04:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Kathrynshourds In addition to the good info that Go Phightins! gave you I just wanted to point out that Wikipedia is not a vanity press. Deadlines here can't be driven by anyone's individual needs. The first goal is always to create a better encyclopedia. Keep in mind that encyclopedias contain both positive and negative information about any subject. Creating an article for an individual can end up also having negative information about the subject. If you want to create a tribute page or something I suggest using Facebook or a blog; that way you have complete control and could also make it more interactive; allow her friends and colleagues to comment. Not saying you should give up on the Wikipedia page; just want to remind you that you have a wp:conflict of interest here so your editing should consist of creating the page but from that point on just suggesting major changes and additions on the talk page and always make sure to communicate your wp:COI regarding the subject. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Target audience

Is there any policy or guideline which describes the intended audience of Wikipedia articles? Specifically, whether we're writing for the general public, interested hobbyists, academic specialists, etc? It's a matter of what kind of content articles should contain and how much explanation of technical concepts should be given. I thought I'd seen something like that, but I can't find it now. Rezin (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

WP is an online, free encyclpedia so it's not a newspaper, magazine, manual or textbook and shouldn't be written like one. You will find more specific guidelines at WP:NOTMANUAL.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
And also take a look at WP:AUDIENCE.--ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Blurby quotes section

The article on Storm de Hirsch has a section called "Quotes" which reads like the promotional blurbs you see on the back of a book. Some of the quotes are duplicated in separate articles about the films themselves, and one is quoted inline in the article itself. Should I just go ahead and delete that section? I'd post a question on the Talk page, but no one ever responds. But just because no one else cares doesn't mean I don't need advice. : ) --Rosekelleher (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Rosekelleher welcome to the teahouse. I don't know enough about what is normal for such articles to comment on deleting the quote section. But IMO when in doubt about whether to leave a comment on the talk page before making an edit it's always a good idea to err on the side of caution and discuss it on the Talk page first. Just because people don't respond doesn't mean people aren't watching. I've had that happen to me, I make several changes which I discuss first in the Talk page and no one says anything then I make some other edit that I consider totally uncontroversial and suddenly people come out of the wood work. You always look better in such situations if you can point to the talk page and make it clear you gave people a chance to comment before making the change. Especially on a page like this about an artistic person. It's possible that the president of the "Storm de Hirsch fan club" is watching the page ;-) --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Ha! Okay, I'll post a comment on the Talk page, and then if no one responds for a week or so, I'll try to remember to come back and delete that section. Thanks for your hard-won advice. As for the Quotes section, I've seen "Critical reception" sections, but they're usually in articles about individual films, not film directors, and they're not usually just a bullet list of blurbs. --Rosekelleher (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

How do I bring attention to comments I left on a Talk page?

Hi there, I have a question about this Stub: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_R._Alger. I have a COI with the subject of the article so I have done my best to be transparent and follow all of the Wikipedia and CIO guidelines. I stated my CIO and proposed some additions and corrections to the Stub in its Talk tab. I used the "Request Edit" tag on the Talk page, but a week after posting am yet to hear from any editors offering help or suggestions. There are very few watchers of this page. What's the best way to get people involved with this Stub? Would someone be able to review my suggestions? Thank you for your help! Cville24 (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Welcome to the Teahouse Cville24! The article is at Jonathan R. Alger (and not Wikipedia:Jonathan R. Alger). To answer your question, I see you have used the requested edit template. It sometimes takes weeks or months for an editor with sufficient interested in such topics to make changes on your behalf. Since your request has been sitting there for nearing a week now, I suggest being WP:BOLD and making the changes to the article yourself. Make sure that once you do, you add {{Connected contributor|Cville24|declared=yes|editedhere=yes}} to the top of Talk:Jonathan R. Alger to declare your COI on the topic and note that you have made your changes to the page. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)
Thank you Technical 13, I appreciate your response! That sounds like a good plan. Is there a place I can post the draft first though to get an editor's review before I make the changes on the page? This is my first change and I want to make sure everything looks good. Thank you. Cville24 (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Technical 13, I have done just that! Thanks for your help. If you get a moment to give this a look to see if it's set up right, I would appreciate it. User:Cville24/sandbox/Jonathan R. Alger
Cville24 I looked at the draft in your sandbox, and it looks fine to me. I left a note on your Talk page as to how you might proceed from here. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Cville24: Although some other editors have suggest that you edit the page yourself, I recommend that you read WP:PSCOI#Steps of Engagement first. There are four steps listed there and you seem to have done only the first one. Since you've been waiting for more than a week, it might be a good idea to skip to steps 3 and 4. Finally, although COI editing is not prohibited on Wikipedia, there are some limitations regarding what kinds of edits are generally considered OK for a COI editor to make and these tend to be minor things which are highly unlikely to be challenged by another editor. So, before you go and be bold, it might be a good idea to ask at WP:COIN, WP:ACADEMICS (the article's Wikiproject), or contact WP:OTRS and ask for assistance. Just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

How do I condense the same reference used multiple times?

Hello, I recently edited the article on Gaia Afrania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_Afrania). I used the same source three times (1,2,6). I saw in other articles that it could be condensed. The reference had an A,B,C, and so on that would take you to the place in the article it was referencing. Just wondering if anyone could explain or send me a link that explains how to do this. Thank you. Zoeydodson (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! You could use a source more than once by setting a ref name in a reference, and set it again just with a '/' in the reference tag. For example: the original reference is set at <ref name=Teahouse>content</ref>, I would reuse it using: <ref name=Teahouse />. You could read WP:REFNAME for more information. ///EuroCarGT 04:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Welcome to the Teahouse, Zoeydodson. The technique is called "named references". The first time you define a reference in the wikicode, you give it a name. The opening tag for the reference is in the format <ref name=Example>. You complete all the usual fields for the reference, and close it as usual with </ref>. Then, any time you want to use the reference again, you use just a single tag, <ref name=Example/>. Please note that final slash, which is essential. Instead of "Example", use any word that serves as a reminder to you the editor. I may use the surname of the author, or a keyword from the title. The reference name is not visible to the reader, it is a memory clue to editors. For a detailed description, see WP:REFNAME. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

why

i dont know how to use wiki teach me 76.92.162.7 (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Internet user. To "use" Wikipedia, enter any subject you find interesting into the search box, and click the symbol that looks like a magnifying glass. That will usually take you to one or more articles about the subject. Every page has plenty of helpful links. This is a very large, complex project, and your question is not very specific. More specific questions get more detailed, useful answers here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Balloon

So I added 4 images of balloon abuses on an article Balloon. Do they need caption? Amma Zon (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Amma Zon, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, they must all have captions describing what they illustrate. Not all of them may be necessary in the article, so do not be surprised if one or some are removed. There should always be a balance between the amount of text and the number of pictures in an article. Best, w.carter-Talk 02:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

What should I say as a caption? Amma Zon (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Amma Zon: As I said above, you should describe what is in the picture in a short and concise sentence. w.carter-Talk 03:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Amma Zon: I have nominated three of your images for deletion, because they appear to be taken from elsewhere on the internet. Please do not add photos taken from elsewhere online -- this creates copyright problems. Did you take this photo yourself, or is it also from elsewhere online? Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

To editor Calliopejen1: Just speedy it per G5. Sorry, I didn't realize it was on Commons. I've seen that picture too many times.
On a related note, did anyone contact his ISP yet (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#David Beals)? Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

First article was rejected

I am trying to create my first article, but it was automatically rejected on the first save. It is a stub article about an insect species that has no page about it yet but is linked in red by an existing page.

The article is "Philonome clemensella".

The rejection message is "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error."

That's an odd reason to reject, since the page is new.

Treichar (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Treichar. I see no record of that edit in your edit history. Did you click on the link to report the error? It may have been a false positive from a bot. Reporting such errors to the bot operator helps improve accuracy. I see that you are working on User:Treichar/Philonome clemensella, so thank you for continuing your effort. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I figured out that I could save the draft in my userspace. The bot prevented the original copy from being saved, so the article was never created (outside the userspace). I didn't report the rejection. Treichar (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
@Treichar: Hi Treichar. Your creation was blocked by an edit filter (abuse filter 638). After looking at the filter's conditions and notes (only available to admins), what happened here is that the filter is set to hamper the contributions of one extremely prolific vandal and sockpuppeteer (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stern review/Archive), whose penchant was to create one line moth articles (which does not match your contribution at all). I am not good at reading the filter conditions but it appears it is invoked if certain conditions are all true, and you pinged each one – it may be the filter should be tightened to avoid false positives. I believe I can advise you how to avoid tripping it in the future even when creating the article directly in the mainspace, but I don't want to post that detail publicly. I can email if you'd like. All the text from your intercepted edit was retrievable (only by admins though) but I see you already created it as a draft so there's no need. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I have just reviewed the draft submitted to AFC - I wish all submissions were so easy to review and accept. It's a great pleasure to review a draft about a subject that is definitively notable, well written and correctly formatted. Congratulations on a very nice little article! Now if only the writers of thousands of crappy WP:Vanispamcruftisement drafts about "famous only on Youtube" wannabe nonentities would rather write brief stubs about bugs and weeds and pond-slime we might actually begin to make a dent in the billion-or-so articles about living things that we are still missing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit: I plan on adding similar Lepidoptera species articles that are missing, and it sounds like I have a high chance of hitting the filter again. I don't want to post my email address publicly here, but you're welcome to email me about it. I am guessing you have a way to retrieve my email address -- is that correct?

Roger: Thanks for the quick review. I am also a fan of high signal-to-noise ratios, even if the signal comes in small pieces. 76.111.30.33 (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Treichar: Hi, I assume that this is you posting above and you only forgot to log in, so we get you IP instead of your name. As to email: Anyone can email you as long as you have the "Enable email from other users "-box checked in your Preferences/User profile (see top of the page). You email someone by clicking on the "Email this user" under "Tools" in the left list on any user page. You will see the email-address of the user who email you, and if you answer, your email will be visible to the other user. Most of us have dedicated email accounts just for the Wikipedia to keep things more private. Best, w.carter-Talk 03:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Treichar: I've sent you an email.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

How do I add the box on the top right-hand side of the article?

Hello! I have just had an article accepted that I wrote about a company. I then realised, that I have no idea how to create one of those boxes that appear on the top right-hand side of an article with quick information about actors, singers, bands, companies, etc. It would be great if someone could help me with this! Thank you Reconnamon (talk) 10:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Reconnamo: Hey Reconnamo. Please see {{Infobox company}}. You can also navigate to any of thousands of article that use it, click edit at the top of the page, and see how they filled out the parameters. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey Fuhghettaboutit! What a great idea to click on the edit button at the top of one of the pages that use it...!! I am new to this so still am coming to grips with the simplicity ;) Thank you very much for your help and super quick reply! Best, Reconnamon (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors grouped in censoring teams

I found several times small teams of 2-3 editors acting for censoring data in Wiki pages, even if data were according to Wiki rules. They had special tactics: 1. They never give up on talk page 2: they acted alternatively in order to avoid the rule of 3 edits/day; after my 3 edits they accuse me of disrupting edits (showing my 3 edits) and they always were with maximum 2 edits registered. Are these tactics normal in Wiki pages ? What may we do in these cases ?

If these tactics are allowed, Wiki is full of censored data. Eurocentral (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Eurocentral Welcome to the teahouse. What you are calling censoring is what we call building a Wikipedia:Consensus. Wikipedia is one of the most trafficked sites on the Internet with an enormous number of people adding and editing content. It's inevitable that we don't all agree. That is why we have wp:talk pages for articles so that when we disagree we can discuss and build a consensus. One thing I can tell you right now is that no one who has edited more than a few pages has never had their work revoked and as humans no one likes it when that happens. There are procedures you can appeal to if you think two editors are "ganging up" on you. Wikipedia works on consensus but at the same time it's not just based on number of editors who support a change. It's based on rational arguments that appeal to wikipedia:policies. But to be honest, from your edit history and the many warnings I doubt you have a case to appeal here and my recommendation is to find some other pages to edit. I suggest looking at the Wikipedia:Community_portal Scroll down to where it says "Help Out" and look at the various examples of pages needing some basic editing. That's a great place for a new editor to get experience making changes and working with the community. But you have to be resigned to the fact that as a Wikipedia editor you never win every argument and sometimes it can be better to walk away from an argument even if you still think you are right. This article is meant to be funny but I think it also says a lot about the general philosophy of what makes a good editor: wp:don't give a fuckism Hope that makes sense. Please don't take this as a criticism; I think this happens to all new editors; it takes a while to get used to how things work here but once you do it can be very rewarding to help add to the sum of world knowledge even in small ways and to work with people who -- at least in my experience -- are generally much nicer and more collaborative than just about any other site on the Internet. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

What should I edit?

Can someone suggest a way to get used to Wikipedia syntax, Thanks a lot,

Cheers, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Many people find the Wikipedia:CHEATSHEET to be very useful in getting used to the key parts of syntax, because it covers the essential basics like headings and so on.
Looking more at the title of your question, check out what MadScientistX11 says about Wikipedia:Community portal in the question immediately above this. That is a great place to find simple tasks where you can improve your editing skills by editing (mostly) existing articles. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

how to submit a new article

I have finalised a draft using my personal account. How does it go live? Do I need to do anything else apart from "Save Page"?Esaridak (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Esaridak, and welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:Naomi Chayen is not submitted for review, so you should put {{subst:submit}} at the top of it, in order to submit it for review. The review process can take several weeks, although your draft may get reviewed faster as it looks (at first glance) to be quite good. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixing italicised heading

Hi, I have italicised the title of the article - how do I fix that - unLindamcgregor (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)italicise it? Thanks Linda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paul_David_ThompsonLindamcgregor (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lindamcgregor: Hi Linda. That was happening because you included the {{infobox book}} template. I've fixed it. If you click on the template link in the last sentence you'll see in its documentation that it tells you how to turn that default condition off, by adding the parameter |italic title=no. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much!Lindamcgregor (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Gideon Telpaz

I am trying to attach a photo of Mr. Telpaz and after filling all requirement I am denied the upload. I am a member since Nov. 6.2014 and I have edited the article some 6 times. How do I proceed,I appreciate the help, Amnon Telpasi

I'm sorry Amrentelpasi, but it is very difficult to help you if you don't give us enough information. I have found that you are working on the article Gideon Telpaz (which, incidentally, is likely to get deleted unless you add some more references to reliable sources, independent of Telpaz - that is far more urgent than worrying about a picture). But we need to know what you have tried and where you are getting stuck in order to help you about a picture. It is also easier for us to look at what you have been doing if you sign your contributions here, with four tildes: ~~~~--ColinFine (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Colin, thanks for your input it's appreciated. I thought the references are already in the article about Gideon Telpaz. I do not want for the article to be deleted, so what kind of additional references are needed. As for uploading the picture, I followed the prompts of the wizard engine by clicking on upload than I transferred the picture from my pictures on my computer, the picture appeared on Gideon's page and than got deleted. This is where I am stuck right now. Please advise me what am I doing wrong. Thanks Amrentelpasi.

You can't upload images yet as you haven't made enough edits for the right to upload pictures to be granted. And please sign your contributions here, with four tildes like this: ~~~~ Nthep (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Amrentelpasi, at present the article contains precisely one reference. This is to an announcement in a newspaper that briefly mentions Telpaz, but looks very like a press release from an organisation which gave him a post, so it is not independent. In a Wikipedia article, pretty well every statement needs to be supported by a reference to a reliable published source, and most of these sources should be independent of the subject. In addition, for Wikipedia to have an article on a subject at all, the subject must have been written about at length in more than one published reliable source, independent of the subject. Please see referencing for beginners, and WP:NAUTHOR. --ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Need to rename

I was told my name sounds like a company name, but that I could request a name change. I just went through the list of names in use to make sure the name I'd like to change to is not in use. Would someone please tell me how to change from Artiquapress to 1llumin1? Thank you. Artiquapress (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there @Artiquapress: Thanks for taking the time to consider a new username! The issue isn't so much that your name sounds like a company name, but that it is a company name - I assume your username is representative of Artiqua Press, which is the publisher of the novels you've written a draft on. You can file a request to change your username over at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
As you are writing about the "Library of Illumination" your choice of a new user name may (or may not) comply with the letter of our Username policy but it doesn't seem to comply with the spirit of it. - Arjayay (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
To explicitly answer the OP's question, Bureaucrats can change your username if you request it at WP:CHU. --Jakob (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Having said that, with only a few edits (and none to the main article space) it's usually easier to just create a new account.--ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all for your help. Artiquapress (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

coloring user name

So I am still a little confused how to get my user name to be a purple color. I believe the formula goes something like < / span color hexcode username / span > right? But I don't know for certain this is right. I tried it on my sandbox but it didn't look right. Needs2learnmore (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You could start with [[User:Needs2learnmore|<span style="color: purple">Needs2learnmore</span>]] ([[User talk:Needs2learnmore|talk]]) and make other changes from there. It produces Needs2learnmore (talk). PrimeHunter (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
@Needs2learnmore: 1.) If you're talking about modifying the color to look different on your userpage, add the following code to the page: {{DISPLAYTITLE:User:<span style="color:purple">Needs2learnmore</span>}}
2.) If you're talking about changing it in your signature, follow what the above messages have said, or specify a bit more on what you'd want and I could give you one in my sandbox. Hope this helped! :) -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
yeah I followed what the first message said and just like to add thanks to everyone for their patience with my inane questions and help requests. Needs2learnmore talk 00:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

contents question

Hello,

I have successfully contributed the first part of an article and now I want to add "CONTENTS" Early Life-Television-Theater etc How to I do this ? Many thanks in advance Askinstoken (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Askinstoken, welcome to the Teahouse. A table of contents automatically appears when the page has at least four section headings. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

thank you Primehunter Askinstoken (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

How to learn

There seems to be a lot of different editing tips that use brackets, colons, or different words to change structure or style. Is there a place where I can find a list to do different things? I'm new but very overwhelmed! Where do I start? What do I do? Thanks! Lyolisa (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Help:Wiki markup. If not, let us know! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Lyolisa (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Lyolisa. A handy reference to the most commonly used functions of Wikicode can be found at Help:Cheatsheet. Feel free to ask specific questions here any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
<Tangent> I hate that that got moved to the help namespace; doesn't make sense there. It is a "help" page but so are a million other Wikipedia space pages, and we're not "helping" with a cheatsheet, were providing a cheatsheet for Wikipedia.<end tangent/rant/grumble>--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You can also enter WP:CHEATSHEET in the search box, if you don't like the word "Help" in this context, Fuhghettaboutit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't rant it peace? Oh well. It's not even faintly about navigation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Finding an Administrator Immediately

Is there a convenient way to find an administrator that is currently online (meaning they edited in the last couple of minutes) for private contact (email/IRC)? I used the Recent Changes page to see the most recent edits, and browsed through the userpages individually until I found an administrator. I also thought to look at the list of administrators, and to individually check when their contributions were until I found one. Both of these seem inconvenient and time consuming. Is there a better way? or is there a page where administrators are listed as being online? thanks, WyattAlex (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A good way to find an admin who is online is to look at the deletion log. Go to Special:Log/delete, or find it via "Logs" under "Special pages" in the left-hand sidebar. JohnCD (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@WyattAlex: Another good way of keeping track of the admins, is if you install this script on your User:WyattAlex/common.js page. I saw that you are using the User:WyattAlex/common.css so it should not be too hard for you to fix this too. When installed it makes a little blue aura appear around the signatures of all admins, so you can instantly see who is what and thereby spot a likely "target". :) Since I have this script installed, I can see that your question was answered by an admin. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

About my page warning

Hey! I am glad to inform wikipedia that i have edited more articles on wikipedia. I like wikipedia and also want to be a experienced wikipedian like you one of them. My article named 29DWD is on the stage of deletion ! Please suggest me now further what should i do? I am waiting for your great answer : l love wikipedia and also want to come in this community! Thanks you

Hello, Sandeep sharma chotia 29DWD (I'm guessing it is you). The stub article Chak 29 D. W. D. (which is not your article, it is Wikipedia's article), is no longer under threat of deletion, probably because WP:NPLACE says "Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source". But at present it is a stub, and your repeated attempts to try and insert what appear to be pictures of yourself and your signature are disruptive and unwelcome. You have no place inside that article (unless you are yourself notable by Wikipedia's standards, in which case you might get a mention, assuming you come from or live in the village). If you want to improve that article (which would be a good thing to do), forget about yourself, and concentrate on adding information about the village which is reported in reliable published sources, such as its history, its population, its agriculture, its culture, its economics, perhaps notable buildings (but only if there is a reliable published sources which talks about them). --ColinFine (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Barging by another editor

I spent quite a bit of time fixing a biographical article about an author Subir Chowdhury. It was originally written by a marketing agency. I used books, magazine articles and websites to verify claims, then deleted what couldn't be verified. Question: Another editor has recently marked the article Wikipedia:RS without discussion or proposal. I believe I should undo the changes and ask the editor to discuss changes with me - gain consensus on necessary changes. Yes? No? Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse RayWyman, Tagging article for refimprove doesn't need a prior discussion. Maintenance tags aren't speedy deletion tags. Tagging article for maintenance is an important part of improvement process of Wikipedia articles. If an editor tagged a page for maintenance that means he/she is trying to help you to improve the article. Actually it's much better if you discussed the matter on talk page first before removing the tag, but I've noticed that you have already reverted his edit. As it's a biography of a living person you must strictly adhere to No original research policy. Which means you have to provide more reliable citations to the History section of the article. You can clearly see that some important parts are missing citations. So I personally think what that tagging article for {{refimprove}} is reasonable. So you must discuss the matter on his/article talk page before removing tags. Cheers--Chamith (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you ChamithN. I admit that my first reaction was to undo (it's a bit of a shock if you've never had it happen). The editor returned: retagged but this time added specific suggestions for improvement. I'm looking into secondary sources now to fix those issues. I see this article as part of my long training to be a better editor. Thanks again. --Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What constitutes reliable source?

I've been looking through a page that seems to have someone who wants to add their own 'sources' from questionable pages. Every time I remove them he adds them back or gets an admin (friend?) to do so. What can one do? McSimon (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings McSimon, and welcome to the Teahouse. This question comes up quite a bit here in the Teahouse and there are a few options that you have. First of all, can you tell me what article you are referring to? On the talk page of this article are there any other active editors? If there are other active editors who leave comments on the talk page, perhaps you can engage them to come up with a consensus on whether or not those references are appropriate.
If these reference insertions and deletions have been more than three times, then there is a problem. At this point, you may ask other, more experienced editors to become involved on the talk page. They don't have to be editors that have a keen interest on the topic, they just may be able to help develop consensus. If it were me, and and I was having the same problem, I would step away from the article for a period of time and then return and in good faith attempt to reinsert the appropriate references. Can you tell me anything about the references to which you refer? What is the definition of questionable pages in your opinion?
  Bfpage |leave a message  13:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
And as to what constitutes a reliable source, please see this page.--ukexpat (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

External image: Question Moved from Teahouse Talk to Teahouse

Hello there! I just noticed that the Sophie Hunter page has an external image which is outdated. The photo from IMDB was from 2011 but there's a newly uploaded photo that is more suitable, taken just this month. This one http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1259206656/tt2084970 or this one http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1275983872/tt2084970. I hope you can help in changing it (or removing it altogether as I don't think it's necessary to the page at all). Thank you very much!41.203.190.30 (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: I moved this question from the Teahouse talk page to here. Greetings 41.203.190.30 welcome to the teahouse. Actually, where you posted this is really more like the Teahouse kitchen where the staff gets together to talk about how to run the teahouse. I took the liberty of moving your question to the actual teahouse in case other hosts can answer it; hosts tend to look at the actual teahouse lot more than the teahouse talk page. However, I think I can answer it as well: what you are experiencing is unfortunately a common problem with Wikipedia. Often the pictures we have for celebrities aren't the best or most recent. The reason for that is that Wikipedia has to be much more rigorous about sticking to the letter of copyright laws, Other sites have user agreements that users have to sign and those agreements shift the responsibility from the site to each individual user. Wikipedia can't do that due to the anonymous crowd sourcing way we edit content. In order for us to use an image we must have the explicit rights to it and we almost certainly won't have the right to a random picture on IMDB. You can search here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Any picture in the commons is something that can be used in Wikipedia. If you find a better picture there let us know. Here are some articles with more info on copyrights and images: Wikipedia:Basic_copyright_issues Wikipedia:Image_use_policy --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The same question by the same poster is already under discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#External image. Nthep (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Waiting Time for Resubmitted Draft

Hi, I rewrote and resubmitted my first article after it was rejected a couple of times but that's just over six weeks, now, and it still hasn't been re-reviewed. I'm just wondering if I have followed the right procedure. Genspeak (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Genspeak, unfortunately the article review process is very backlogged at the moment (currently ~2600 articles), and this leads to a considerable delay with reviewing. That said, 6 weeks is a very long time and your article is in the "very old" category, meaning it shouldn't be much longer before it's reviewed. Sam Walton (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Sam! Hopefully not too long, then. Genspeak (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

How do I make my sources verifiable?

So I have an article and I am trying to create it. I have a decent bit of information, but I've been told that I need to add external sources to make it verifiable and I am unsure as to how to go about doing that. I have never edited or created on wikipedia so this is all new to me. Please help! Camwest13 (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Camwest and welcome to WP. It can be very frustrating in the beginning until one learns the basic rules and procedures for this project. WP is based on reliable sources. In your proposed article you've made a common newbie error. You wrote the article based on your personal knowledge of the subject rather then summarizing what reliable sources (books, magazines and newspapers) say about the subject and citing those sources. In other words you put the cart before the horse. Whenever I consider creating a new WP article I first scour the Internet to see what reliable, secondary sources are available about the subject as that is the foundation of any article. If I find that sources are scarce I don't bother writing the article because I know it will not be accepted by WP on the basis of the subject not being notable enough for significant coverage in reliable sources. See WP:V and WP:Notability (people) for more detailed information.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Doing a Google search for Josh Levi I see there are many publications that mention of him. However, if the sources are not reputable or only make a minor mention or he is only known for being one of many who appeared as a reality show contestant...... then it may not add up to significant coverage and he may not qualify for an article on WP. If you a) read WP:Notability (people) carefully b) Look at all the sources on a Google search c) cut your draft back to a few paragraphs d) add citations for each and every sentence..... then the article might get accepted. But there are no guarantees. Good luck. If you have more questions or need help you can ping me on my user talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Camwest13, greetings from me as well. You've got a great answer from Keithbob. Just to add, you said "I need to add external sources to make it verifiable and I am unsure as to how to go about doing that". Just in case if you don' know how to add references(sources), simplest way too add references placing the URL/information of the source in between <ref></ref> tags. You can get to know more about referencing by reading Help:Referencing for beginners. Also if you are confused what realible sources are, you should check out guideline on identifying reliable sources. Cheers--Chamith (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Helped needed with a somewhat controversial page, with 3 new shaky sources added

Hello. I've been editing for about 6 months on a variety of topics, including a number of alternative medicine subjects. Recently an editor has added 3 new "Skeptic" sources to the Rolfing article. As you can read on the talk page, all 3 of these sources only mention the word "Rolfing" once, and only in a long list of alternative medicine topics. In each case, the author is making a blanket complaint about alt-med (though the grouping is quite different in each of the sources), and there is no specific information or criticism about Rolfing provided. The Skeptic's Dictionary is already cited, which is a much better Skeptic source, offering a full page of information and several specific criticisms. I believe these three new sources should be disallowed as they don't add anything to the article. However, I am outnumbered as this page, like many alt-med pages, is patrolled by a number of Skeptic editors who will always weigh in favor of a Skeptic source regardless of its quality. What's the protocol for seeking an outside opinion with some authority to evaluate this? Everything is civil but I don't think we are going to be able to reach consensus on this matter. Thank you! Karinpower (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Karinpower and it's great to see you here in the Teahouse. I went to the article to which you referred and found it to be more of an advertisement. At this point, the references are irrelevant and I am marking the article as an advertisement and nominating it for deletion! It needs to be heavily revised to survive the deletion process, especially since it only has primary sources. If you would like to see this article survive the process of being reviewed for deletion, then this should be a rallying point for the editors who want to see this article remain on Wikipedia. I hope this is not bad news but if you all get together to improve the article and remove all references that appear like advertisements it is possible to save this article. It does not seem to be written from a neutral point of view. I am not going to mark it for speedy deletion but I will initiate the process that will begin its review to begin the deletion process. At this point, it is much more important to re-edit the article and to remove advertisement like language. And then in the meantime, Ed reliable secondary sources to the article. I honestly feel very badly about this bad news. I will take some time and perform some editing on the article myself trying to remove the advertisement like language. I have not checked the possible copyright violations that may exist in the article. Advertisement like language often indicates that the content has been cut and pasted from another source. If this is the case, then the article will be marked for speedy deletion. So from your point of view, it's time to get very busy if you want to see this article remain on Wikipedia.
I am sorry to tell you that the Rofling article contains a copyright violation and no amount of editing at this point, will help. I am so sorry to have to tell you this because I would rather help people in the Teahouse rather than give them bad news.
  Bfpage |leave a message  13:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Just as a follow up: it looks like this wasn't a copyright violation after all. It was one of those cases where another site is copying from Wikipedia not vice versa. That happened to me once. I was looking for sources on a rather esoteric topic and I came across a site and was reading and thinking "I like the way this person writes... hey WTF?" It was text I had written earlier from the Wikipedia article on the subject copied (with no attribution) to another site. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
MadScientistX11, you are absolutely right. This happens a lot with Wikipedia articles; I think there are computer programs that people have set up to harvest the text and populate their websites which are attempting to look authoritative. --Karinpower (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

adding a pic

How do I add a picture to my profile I

Hello. It's not clear how to answer you, because it's not clear what you mean. Wikipedia does not contain profiles: it is not a directory or a social networking site. If you mean that somebody has written an article about you, and you would like to donate a picture of yourself, that would be very welcome. First, you need to ensure that whoever holds the copyright in the picture is willing to release it under a suitable free licence such as CC-BY-SA: the copyright holder will not usually be you unless you have made an arrangement with the photographer to that effect. Then, the copyright holder needs to follow the prodedure in donating copyright materials, and upload the picture to Wikimedia commons by following Help:Upload. Once that has been done, you can edit the article to include the picture: see Image tutorial. Note that while this edit would be welcome, you are usually strongly discouraged from editing an article about yourself: see conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this person wants to add a photo to his or her user page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

How to fix school infobox?

Hi,

I entered a school infobox on South Braintree Middle School and it will not show up as a infobox. It was originally working fine but after I made an update it would not work. Could someone look at the page and If you could spot and fix the error that would be great. Aidan721 (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Aidan721: Welcome to the Teahouse! The problem was that a link wasn't properly closed; fixed with this edit.
When you're done filling out the infobox, I recommend removing most of the unused fields to keep the infobox code short. Cheers, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I wondered why I didn't see an error. I named a reference since it was used twice. This article could really use more information, such as the school's history.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Middle schools don't typically have standalone articles unless there is some indication of notability. Looking into it, I don't think this one is an exception, and it may be best to redirect to Braintree Public Schools. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Which I have done. While it sucks to lose the article you wrote you gained a lot of experience working with templates. There are a lot of school articles that do not have infoboxes and many more that have the wrong one (Template: infobox secondary school instead of Template:infobox school). Perhaps you may like to look for and work on those? John from Idegon (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I started to mention middle schools weren't notable, but SuperHamster didn't, so I thought it might have just been elementary schools.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Vchimpanzee: Heh, I jumped on the question, then only started to look into the notability of the topic afterwards. Don't let your confidence slide from the words of a mere hamster. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The best policy to to pit against WP:TENSE in edit summaries for keeping articles about outdated technology and models written in present tense as long as it's plausible that they still exist somewhere

Some people think WP:TENSE is the rule for writing articles about outdated technologies and models in the past tense. So I've taken the initiative to adjust articles about discontinued models to match that rule.

But then came along a guy who educated me that articles about those things should be written about in the present tense if there's more possibility that they still exist than there is a possibility of sourcing the idea that none continue to exist. He used this rule as an example, and it actually makes sense to me and I like it, but sadly it's only about one type of technology, which I don't know why couldn't be expanded to include everything: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Verb_tense

And then, as I have discovered, Wiki has a category list of outdated things, and it shows that the overwhelming majority of articles about outdated things *are* written in present tense, despite the clause from WP:TENSE about historical things vs. media productions (especially fiction). So I'd like his support on conforming other articles to meet that standard, and I'm waiting for his reply.

Meanwhile, is there an even more concretely encompassing rule to pit against WP:TENSE in edit summaries that shows why the lion's share of articles about outdated-but-still-existing products are indeed written in the present-tense format?

Thanks if so, SummerFunMan (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings SummerFunMan welcome to the teahouse. My reading of wp:TENSE is that it's about the suggested tense for writing about fiction not products. My preference is to use present tense as my default for most things. I will say that if you are asking is it a good idea to go around changing the tense of existing articles about technology products I think the answer is no that is not a good idea. In general we discourage editing to conform to things like tense. Wikipedia is too diverse to really expect or to spend resources trying to enforce such standards. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
SummerFunMan I looked at the other link and also at some of your recent edits such as this one that was reverted by @McGeddon:: iPhone change of tense edit The policy you were using was for articles about Fiction. But even more so it's not a good idea to go around arbitrarily changing the text of articles even if they don't correspond to the suggested standards in policies. Editors have their own styles and articles have very different kinds of focus and audiences. If you can make a good case that an article is poorly written, hard to follow, etc. and that the tense is part of the problem then it's good to edit but just to arbitrarily conform to a certain policy is not usually a productive use of resources and likely to get reverted as that edit was. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_275&oldid=1138689244"