Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 292

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 285←Archive 290Archive 291Archive 292Archive 293Archive 294Archive 295

Should I edit this timeline?

Working on the Disappearance of Lauren Spierer article. We put the timeline of the last evening she was seen in the article. Some of the times are on the basis of witness statements and some are based on surveillance footage. The timestamps in bold that were based on surveillance footage and witness statement times unbolded. The reason this distinction is important is because in this case, the witness statements are in question, they are suspects, there is a lawsuit, etc. I feel like making that distinction is important and most everyone working on the article has agreed on that point.

Well, it seems like once a month or so, someone comes by and sees that some times are in bold and others are not and fixes them (making them all bold or all unbold). Thus far no one has brought it up on the talk page, so I'm assuming that they are simply mistaking this distinction as a typographical error. It doesn't bother me to just put them back and I put a hidden message explaining the situation. The problem is not that they're being changed, the issue is, I have to assume that the people who are fixing this "error" are representative of the average reader who just assume the same thing.

I asked this a few months back and a couple of people felt I should leave it as-is and that they themselves realized why it was the way it was, but people keep changing it, so I have to assume it not obvious to everyone. Should I try something different? Colors perhaps? Any ideas? Bali88 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2015 Teahouse, Bali88. Do reliable sources analyze the timeline in this fashion? Do reliable sources list the various times in two typographically distinct ways? If not, beware of original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Are readers detecting OR in an article that is supposed to be a strictly neutral summary? That may explain the edits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Bali88 and Cullen328 It would have to be a freezing day in San Francisco (a very unlikely occurence) before I ever question anything Cullen says. But, hey it IS a freezing day in San Francisco so here goes: IMO the bold in this timeline is not OR at all. Everything in the timeline seems well referenced. But there is a crucial distinction which I agree with Bali88 it is critical to make. Some of the refs that validate the timeline are from timestamps on video surveillance. Others are from witness testimony. There is a very rational (and also well documented with sources) speculation that at least one of the witnesses is lying and knows more about the disappearance than they are saying. Hence it makes perfect sense IMO to show the distinction. If for example one of the editors had a theory that one witness in particular was less trustworthy and were only distinguishing that person's testimony that would be OR but they aren't doing that. They are taking the very logical approach of saying "here is what we know from actual cameras and here is what we know from witnesses, one or more of whom may not be as credible as the footage". Making this kind of distinction in data presentation is IMO good UI design. Regarding what to do about it: have you tried putting a comment at the top of the timeline? Something that says the issue has been discussed and that people should look at the talk page and comment there before unbolding parts of the timeline. If it is happening a lot it also might be possible to make a Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection I notice there is also some emotional discussion on the talk page about "missing white girl syndrome" which could also be a reason some people are unbolding the timeline and might further help make a case to partially protect the page. My advise would be to try the comment first though and stick to just watching the page and undoing the changes unless it is happening very frequently. Regarding using color rather than bold, I personally HATE adding color to text and think there is a chance that any editor who would ignore the comment about the bold text would also ignore the comment about colored text and would change it anyway but I could be wrong on both counts. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Bali88 I noticed you already had a comment in the timeline. I added another more emphatic comment at the very top of the timeline as well. If you think the wording was too strong or otherwise want to change what I did feel free. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Freezing temperatures in San Francisco are not common but are also not rare, as last night shows. It is also not rare for me to be wrong, but my concern about the formatting remains. The paragraphs beginning with bold times seem to start with facts that could be observed on surveillance video, and then stray into information that must have come from witness statements, or interpretations, such as the conclusion that she was so intoxicated that she failed to protect her face when she fell. So, the formatting tells the reader that everything in the section that follows can be readily verified by watching the video, and I truly doubt that is so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen328 and MadScientistX11. The interesting thing about these responses is that the two of you responded to the question the first time I posted it, in the same order, and said basically the exact same things. lol Honestly, I don't think people are taking a stance on the issue for any reasons at all aside from simply thinking it's a typographical error. No one has really had any qualms about discussing their issues with the article or the way the case is portrayed in the article so I feel like if people were editing it because they felt it was original research, or felt it was biased in some way, I would've heard about it on the talk page or someone would've re-reverted it back to what they had edited. Yes, I can put a warning on the page not to edit it, but that doesn't really fix the problem. I don't care that people are editing it, I want to make sure that the reader comprehends what that difference is meant to signify and doesn't just perceive it as a typo. I have to assume people are perceiving it as a typo given how many people are editing it as such. Honestly it isn't *that* big a deal. There are much bigger clarity issues than this. I just didn't know if someone had any unique ideas that I hadn't considered before. If no one else presents any, I'll just leave it as-is and call it a day. :-) Bali88 (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Bali88 So I just want to explain a bit more where my point of view comes from. I used to build software for a living and I'm rather fanatical about good UI design. For that reason I almost always discourage people adding bold or italic or colors to text because it is usually superfluous. The reason I discourage such formatting is because I think it should be saved for those rare cases where there is some important information that can't be easily communicated any other way. I think this IS such a case. Cullen328 perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment but it doesn't make much sense to me. This is a timeline. The goal of a timeline is to show events in order by the time they occurred. The information they have about the events comes from two different sources. Hence, the logical thing to do is to show events that are sourced from the video one way and events from witnesses another way. I don't quite follow you when you say "the formatting tells the reader that everything in the section that follows can be readily verified by watching the video, and I truly doubt that is so." It seems to me the whole point of wanting to distinguish between video timestamp info and witness testimony is precisely to avoid people thinking that everything in the timeline is supported by video. My one other bit of advise is it might be a good idea to post this question at the reference desk, find the topic that most closely matches something like Human Computer Interaction (HCI) or User Interface design. That won't address the issue of people changing it but someone who is an expert on UI design might have some better ideas on how to present the information most intuitively. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I think his issue is largely that mixed in with the surveillance video is a bit of witness testimony. I can kinda see his point, but honestly I can't see a way to present the information any differently. To me, the surveillance times are anchored, the witness times are not. The times are what is important. We know she was in this location at this time. Any suggestions or feedback are appreciated Bali88 (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Let me give a specific example of my concern: We have a description of her entering and exiting an alley based on video from a security camera mounted on a nearby apartment building. Then later in the same paragraph, we are told "He vomited on the carpet on the way upstairs". It seems highly unlikely to me that a security camera on an adjoining building could have recorded this. The only information in those paragraphs with bolded time stamps should be strictly objective facts observable in that specific video. Nothing from witness statements and no conclusions should be included. Those paragraphs are full of such content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion for how you would fix the issue? Bali88 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps add paragraph breaks so that the only content in the bold timestamped paragraphs is what can be seen, indisputably, in the referenced videos. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
hello welcome to teahouse you can open that page and click on edit and change your timeline i hope this answer would help you12:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)12:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)~
There is serious problem with using bolding (or other typographic variation such as italics, underlining, colour, font, etc.) to convey meaning, it violates WP:ACCESSIBILITY. The information it attempts to convey is lost for users who depend on screen readers as such software does not convey typographic variations to the user. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Money in the Bank 2015

Please move WWE Money in the Bank (2015) to Money in the Bank (2015). At first Money in the Bank (2015) must be linked from other pages. This message is only for administrators. Thanks. Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ikhtiar H, if you have a request for a page to me moved, the right place for that is at the Wikipedia:Requested moves, not the Teahouse. Best w.carter-Talk 13:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My page is about to be deleted

Hi, i am Manuel98 T and i created a page for a Greek player called Alexandros Tanidis and everytime above my page i see a message about my page. It's about deletion of my page. The same happened one week ago when i put an image and i was been reported because my image was copyright (as they said), and now i created my page again and now i have a message about Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. Tell me what i have to do to keep my page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuel98 T (talk • contribs) 10:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Manuel, and welcome. The concern is that Tanidis "has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league." Because of this, other editors think it will be hard to keep an article about him up to date and accurate, which is one of our goals on Wikipedia. If you want to discuss this with other editors, you can contribute on this page, but it's likely that Tanidis simply doesn't meet our minimum requirements for having an article. Shii (tock) 15:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence not adequate

Hi guys,

I submitted the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chris_Rokos_%28former_hedge_fund_manager%29

Unfortunately is was declined as "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". I was nearly sure that references used by me were verifable and independent.

Any ideas will be appreciated. MichelleOD (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, MichelleOD. I think the references are borderline adequate. In my view the Reuters one is the only one substantial enough to contribute to notabililty - one or both of the FT and WSJ may do so, but I can't see them. The rest are reliable, and so can be used to support individual claims in the article, but are not in my view substantial enough to demonstrate notability. (Institutional Investors Alpha might be, again, but reads to me like a press release, in which case it is not independent). I suggest you ask The Herald (the user that declined it) on their talk page how you might improve it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

help required from experienced authors

hi sir, i just added the page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arowana_Consulting which has been declined due to lack of sources of notability. I added a number of sources but wikipedia accepted only two. kindly help me finding more and please suggest if adding the links to pdf of certifications acquired by the company could be of some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelrini2 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rachelrini2. No, pdf's of certifications acquired by the company are completely irrelevant to establishing notability. A Wikipedia article must be 100% based on published information, and mostly - maybe 90% - based on what other people have said about the subject. The The Hindu article is fine as a reliable, independent source - but it only mentions Arowana in passing. You need to find places where people who are nothing to do with Arowana have written at length about it, and had their writing about it published in reliable places such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers. If you cannot find such places, then it is impossible to write a useful article about the company, and so it is not permitted to try. --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Article Submission Denied. Came across as advertisement. Need insight

I recently submitted an article for my current company I work for. It was denied on the basis it reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry. Could you take a looks and provide insight into the areas that come across mroe as a advertisment so I can remove or edit them? Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lumo_(sonarDesign) Bclark1220 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Answered at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#17:15:43.2C 5 January 2015 review of submission by Bclark1220 -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Template required

I am looking for an existing navbox template which creates a navbox like {{Ladies European Tour Seasons}} but which I can get by entering something like {{:numberlist|name=Ladies European Tour Seasons|link=Ladies European Tour|min=2006,max=2015}}. I'm surprised I can't find something. Nigej (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nigej: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. This is just a guess but I would suggest WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Emoji

How to make them on Wiki? Is there a key? Chrislamic.State (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Chrislamic.State and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that Wikipedia:Emoticons is the page you are looking for. w.carter-Talk 21:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you kindly W.carter! Chrislamic.State (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My minor addition was again reverted

I added a small fact to the Wikipedia page on the movie Free Birds. It was reverted without comment, and I asked for help here - see below.

I found a reference for the fact, and did another edit. My edit was again reverted, with the comment 'Saying "it wasn't released" adds nothing. Were better off not inclusing it.'

I personally think the fact that a film released in theatres in 3D was not released in the United States for the home market in 3D is a relevant fact for an article about the movie.

I have never had an edit I made reverted like this. I don't think reverting back to my version seems like a very productive move. How should I proceed? Benthatsme (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Benthatsme. I think that might be a reasonable thing to note in the article, but the source you gave is just a blu-ray listing. If sources discussing the film in depth have noted that it was not released in 3D in the US, then it's probably relevant to the article. If they haven't, then it does still look (to others) like original research; it may be true that it was not released in 3D, but it's not being remarked upon by the secondary sources usually used to feed a Wikipedia article. The source looks a bit flimsy compared to the extensive commentary given as other sources for the article. What I'd be looking for would be other commentators who have remarked on it not being released in 3D in the US, rather than just that that is a fact. The www.blu-ray.com source looks like a primary source, which are useful for verifying information about a film (such as its release on blu-ray, which that same source is also used to prove) but not usually used for making editorial comments about them. There's nothing in the source which states it was not released in 3D at all, so the addition was probably reverted as not being shown by the source or proved by the source to be a particularly noteworthy issue.
Generally, if you can't find a source which highlights something as unusual or remarkable about a particular subject, it's not generally highlighted in a Wikipedia article.
Regarding the other person and their reversion, in general, when this happens, the normal procedure would now be to ask them why they didn't like the edit and discuss it with them on the talk page for the article here or their user talk page here. I know it's frustrating, but approaching the person who disagrees with you about the relevance or otherwise of a particular passage is the best way of getting a concrete answer (particularly in light of the above). It would also help if you approached them assuming they changed your edit in good faith rather than with an accusatory or upset/angry tone. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the help thus far LouiseS1979. I will follow up on the Free Birds talk page on the issue. Before I do, I would like to better understand your thoughts, if you have time.
I am confused by your first paragraph. The source used in the article for the information about the Blu-Ray release date (blu-ray.com) is the same source I used to reference the lack of a 3D home release (where the lack of a 3D release is specifically noted). You seem to both be saying that blu-ray.com is a primary source, and not a source. I suspect I am mis-reading your response in some way. Can you try to clarify for me?
You also mention that something must by 'unusual' to be included, which confuses me when it comes to simple facts. If I wanted to insert a line such as 'Unusual for a movied released in the theatre in 3D, there was no blu-ray release of the 3D version of the film' in the article, then of course I would need to reference that.
All I am trying to do is include a fact. From my point of view, the article (rightly) contains a lot of facts - gross, budget, director, etc. In fact the box office results get their own section - which seems right to me. I'm trying to make the point that there are a lot of 'facts' in the usual Wikipedia article on any movie that are not remarked on as being unusual by any of the secondary sources. This is one more detail about the blu-ray release, and I don't see that it is so irrelevant to the topic that it should be excluded from the article. Benthatsme (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. I was looking last night at a source which only included product information. Maybe I was mistaken. I still think we slightly differ on the word 'fact', to be honest, as might other users. Verifiable positive facts (earnings, release date, etc) about the movie can definitely be sourced to primary sources. I think the 'not released on 3D' fact is a situation in which you may need to provide more justification because it's something that goes beyond merely verifiable from a check-list of product information ('it earned $Xm on its first weekend') and into the realms of proving/explaining/justifying a negative ('normally these films are released in 3D, but this one wasn't because...', therefore, the source needs to explain why it's specifically relevant that this one was not.) Can you find any other sources that say that it was not released on 3D and why? Again, perhaps the best place to start is asking the user who reverted you rather than asking us here, because ultimately I don't know why they did so if you provided the source. LouiseS1979 (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

At the Recycle Rush page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycle_Rush), I have recently had basically all the information deleted for copyright violation issues. I can say that the part which violated the copyright (the "rules" part) was not done by me, so I will just have to do it myself another time so that it doesn't violate the copyright. However, the "events" part that I had written had not violated any copyrights, so I do not understand why it was deleted. Plus I even included the source for that part and you could clearly see that there was no copyright violation. If someone could please inform me on this, it would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks! TheRoboticGuy (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@TheRoboticGuy: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I agree that the list of events should probably not have been reverted. As for the rest of it, the problem may be that you (or someone, since you are not the guilty party) need to write the information in your own words and not just say what the source said. Also, we do not use "℠" and "®" in articles. It would be helpful to find multiple sources that establish notability, and especially sources independent of the subject of the article. Have magazines and newspapers covered this sport?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Perfect, I will just put the events lists back on the page for now and I will work on putting the description in my own words. Sorry, I do not know any independent sources such as magazines or newspapers, but I will try to find some. Thanks!

TheRoboticGuy (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TheRoboticGuy. Please be aware that, if there is no independent coverage in reliable sources for this robotics competition, then the article must be deleted. So, please make the search for such sources your highest priority. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

sizing photo in infobox

Hi, I'm working on the Paul Steinhardt page, and would like to adjust the photo I'm using at the top of the infobox.

1. How can I make it larger/wider? 2. How do I change the caption? (this is a photo I uploaded)

Thanks so much for the help! Sleepy Geek (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sleepy Geek, welcome to the Teahouse. The infobox code starts {{Infobox scientist. That means it uses Template:Infobox scientist which is also linked at bottom of the edit window if you click "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page". The template page has documentation for the image parameters. I used that in [1]. There is also a caption parameter. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
What I did to add my hometown pic is go to Wikimedia Commons and search and find the image you want. Once that's done, above it should be a link saying "Use this file" with a Wikipedia icon beside it. It will give you 2 links, pick the bottom one. Add a | beside the last letter inside the brackets, then put in how large you want it, i.e. 400px. Then if you want it left right or centered, put another | and then left, right, or center. All inside the brackets.

Teena (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

adding to scientist template for infobox

I am working on the Paul Steinhardt page.

Is it possible to change the scientist template to add "undergraduate advisors" ?

currently this is just "other academic advisors."

Thanks so much! Sleepy Geek (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sleepy Geek. The place to ask is on the template's talk page Template Talk:Infobox scientist. It may be that somebody will be happy to do it for you, or you may have to persuade somebody that this is a good idea, so be ready with your arguments. --ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources and editing

I have tried to edit an article, Alevism, but my edits always get reversed- I have tried putting in good academic sources, but people get emotional and revert anyway. If academic sources are not considered a good basis for editing then editing wikipedia doesn't seem very appealing. I tried in August and gave up after 2 days, but I am trying again! Edging (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Edging. A quick look at Talk:Alevism suggests to me that you are following Wikipedia policies, and the people you are arguing with don't understand them. I suggest you call for third opinion, or something else from the dispute resolution process. --ColinFine (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you ColinFine. I tried the dispute resolution noticeboard, but was told I should just edit boldly- the discussion was closed and no effort was made to resolve the dispute. The result is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Alevism. Edging (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The adventure game didn't work!?

Hi!!! Please help me… I tried and tried,but the game never started, but I managed to click on "mission".Oh,and by the way,I'm Grace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.248.198.4 (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Article about a media company

Hello Everyone! I'm interested in making an article on a media company I work for. We cover charity events that have celebrity involvement and produce a weekly show. The notability factor is that we've interviewed many high-level celebrities and they have valuable inspirational advice for the audience. How can we make the article without appearing like an AD? Please help! OTSN Representative 19:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardGthe3rd (talk • contribs)

Hello, EdwardGthe3rd. The first thing is to be open about your conflict of interest, which you have done: well done. The next thing is to understand the special Wikipedia meaning of the word notability: what your organisation has done and who it has interviewed does not count in the slightest towards notability, unless somebody unconnected with you has written about them. Notability is entirely about what independent people have written about the subject in reliable published sources. If you can find such sources, then you can try writing an article, bearing in mind the guidelines in wp:conflict of interest. Anything even a tiny bit evaluative or subjective (such as any superlatives, any non-objective qualities, anything about people's motives, anything which directs how the reader should view the subject) may be included only if it is directly taken from a cited independent source. If you read about the articles for creation process, and use the article wizard to create it, then you can edit it without fear of it being deleted under you (as long as you don't infringe copyright), until it is ready for you to request a review. --ColinFine (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

To contradict

My article has been declined and don't seem to get what is wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal Wizard (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Royal Wizard. You haven't told us which article it is that has been declined (and I don't see any in your history). If you mean the edits you made to Padrauna, they were all reverted because you did not give any source for them, and some of them were rather subjective and not written in an encyclopaedic tone. Please see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Want to update a non-profit page that is incomplete

Hi All! I want to elaborate on a non-profit's page that currently has a very limited description of the organization. I would like to firstly use information from their website to make the description more accurate. Then, I would also like to add some history using a few resources compiled about the founding of the organization. Should I make all these changes at once? Should I directly quote resources with footnotes, or paraphrase and just have the references at the end? I want to correctly credit the sources. Thank you BHinNJ (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, BHinNJ, welcome, and thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. You can use information from their website in a very limited way: for uncontroversial factual information such as dates and places. But the great majority of the page should be referenced to reliable published sources unconnected with the organisation. At least every paragraph, and sometimes every sentence, should have a reference: use Wikipedia's referencing mechanism, and it will automatically number them, and collect and display the references at the bottom. See referencing for beginners. Nothing whatever in the article should come from unpublished information. --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Page is not linked

Hi guys! I've created a page Uzbekistan-European Union relations, but in search area and in the page Foreign relations of the European Union it says that such page does not exist. Does anybody know how to fix it? Farkhodg (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

In the EU page you had an m-dash symbol rather than a hyphen in the title. I've corrected it for you. Rojomoke (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Rojomoke, thank you so much!Farkhodg (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

How to determine official name?

I was reading WP:Article Titles and it had information on official name's. I understood what common name means but did not fully understand official name. Could I ask how does one determine the official name of a group? Do we accept the official name to be the one that is self-chosen as per reliable sources? I hope my question makes sense. Just in case it does not, I will provide an example examples:

  • A group decide on a name Y - is the group's official name y

Thank you Mbcap (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mbcap. There is no strict definition of "official name" as it can vary according to context. It could be the name that is self chosen, as in the case of an organization. It could be chosen by parents, as in the case of a person's full legal name. It could be designated in law. For example, the official name of San Francisco is "The City and County of San Francisco". So "self chosen" is not a requirement. What is required is that reliable sources report the official name. It should be mentioned in the lead section of the article, often in the first sentence. But as my "San Francisco" example shows, it is the common name that determines the article title, not the "official name", which is often not widely known. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Cullen328. A couple of question in regards to your answer. I would be grateful if you could explain (assuming my query is in relation to a group).
1) So if, for the example I gave above, a group chooses for itself the name Y and it is subsequently reported by reliable sources that, said group has self-chosen Y as their name, would Y then be the official name?
2) Is there anything that would supersede the above criteria, and thus nullify this official name which is self-chosen and reported as self-chosen by reliable sources?
3) You said that the official name should be mentioned in the lead section of the article, often in the first sentence. How is it determined if the official name goes in the first sentence or not?
4) I read in [WP:COMMONNAME] that the most common name should be used as the article title and I understand that. Could you clarify the trend I saw in the examples the policy gave such as Ghandi, Clinton, Bono and lady gaga etc. It seemed that the common name was used as title of the article and the official name was used to start of the lead. Is this always the case and in which cases would you not follow this format.
I would be very grateful for your assistance. Mbcap (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, Mbcap.
1) We have have no official Wikipedia process for designating an "official name", so every case must be determined in context. What is the specific context of your question?
2) This is a tough question to answer without context. If a club of online trolls gives itself a name like "The Vatican" or "The United States Senate", then they should not expect Wikipedia to recognize their "self chosen" name.
3) The determination of when the "official name" should be mentioned is a matter if editorial judgment, as determined by consensus of active editors. Usually, but not always, it will be at the beginning of the article. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that a very famous convicted mass murderer decides to change his legal name to a long string of pornographic phrases, and the liberal laws in that particular jurisdiction allow that. Editors may well decide that the new name does not belong in the lead sentence, or even the lead paragraph. That will be a difficult discussion. But each case must be decided on its own individual merits.
4) In the cases like the ones you mention, the common name should be used, as long as it is unique. Neither Ghandi nor Clinton are good titles, as there are several people known that way. So, we need to disambiguate. But there is only one Lady Gaga though she was obviously born with another name. Cher is another, older example. When there is a strong acceptance of a stage name, or pen name, we go with that. Mark Twain may be the most famous 19th century example. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for further clarifying my questions Cullen328. In regards to my point 4 above, I just shortened the name as I assumed you would know what I was talking about. I will provide context; lets say a rebel group has control over some territory. It has decided to call itself Y and it has been reported by both themselves and secondary reliable sources that they have decided to call themselves Y. They have also gone on to act in a way that is deemed to be "in violation of the UN declaration of human rights" and "committed many atrocities". About a 3rd of all the worlds nation states have decided to band together to eliminate this rebel group. I think that is enough and you probably now know what I am talking about but I ask that you assess it with the assumption that you have no knowledge of international news. Please could you tell me where their name (Y) should be in the lead and why. Could you also recommend any other relevant policy/guideline that needs to be considered. And lastly if you answer my query in your reply, would that answer be a definitive position or an opinion? Sorry for asking such a complex question. Mbcap (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap, my guess is that you are discussing how to name the article about IS/ISIS/ISIL. Anything I would say would be my own personal opinion, and pretty much worthless here, since I have not studied the issue in any detail, other than being aware that a variety of names are used in English language sources. A few observations: Such highly contentious topics are often subject to ArbCom sanctions, imposing behavioral restrictions on editors. Comply with those restrictions carefully. Also, please consider that it is often far more useful to focus on improving the referenced content of such articles, instead of obsessing about naming controversies, which often serve as a diversion from far more important issues for the encyclopedia. Another point is that translations or transliterations from one language to another often involve subjective elements. My final point is that issues that seem intensely and vitally important at one moment in time are later seen as trivial and secondary. Wise editors may choose to abstain from such disputes, to allow the dust to settle. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

creating student accounts

I created a course page for my class but I am not sure how to get an individual account for each student and how they can then connect with me as a class. I did input a user name for each student on the course page but I don't think they are able to log in yet. Any suggestions? Thank you MsCameron (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi MsCameron. You actually added your proposed student accounts (and course topics) to a Wikipedia template page - please don't do that! I would suggest that you read through Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Setting up your course before trying to set up your course page; you will also need to request the course instructor userright at the Education Noticeboard (which is the best place to get help with course-related issues). As regards your students, they will need to set up accounts themselves by going to Special:CreateAccount and filling in the username they want to use. They can communicate with you via your user talkpage and can use the course page for co-ordination once you have set it up. Yunshui 雲水 13:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello MsCameron and welcome to the Teahouse. They will all need to set up their own accounts. They can do this by going to the signup page and filling in the form. If they are doing this in-class, then it is likely that only six would be able to create an account in this fashion which isn't ideal. If you are intending on having them all create their accounts at once from class, then I suggest going through the Request an account process to get the accounts created for you by our team of Account creators. Make sure that in the Comments section all of your students mention Student in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MsCameron/Mi%27kmaq_Studies_10 by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MsCameron so the account creators that respond will know they are part of your class. If all of your students put in requests for accounts and it seems to be taking a long time for a response, you may wish to visit the #wikipedia-en-accounts-unreg connect channel on freenode and ask one or more of the users in the list with the + next to their name for assistance. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Why my photos were deleted when I sent a permissions email

I am creating an article Draft: Tresor Otshudi (Entertainer)which I submitted for review. I will continue working on the article but cannot understand why the images I uploaded are being deleted. I twice emailed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org forwarding an email from the author to use the images File:Tresor WikiPic1.JPG, File:Tresor WikiPic2.JPG, File:Tresor Otshudi by Ernest Collins (crop-250).jpg, File:Tresor crop250.jpg, File:Tresor Otshudi.JPG. I sent an email on December 28, 2014. I cannot figure out what to do, and also, how to wade through all the instructions to determine what licence the images must have to satisfy Wikipedia's policy. Please advise me. 4Love&Laughter (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 4Love&Laughter. I think you were perhaps just a little too soon (remember that the OTRS group, like everything else, is staffed by volunteers). The deletion log of one of these a few minutes into 29 December is here, and says "(No permission since 21 December 2014: If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish the file, please email our OTRS team to get the file restored)". So I suggest you contact the user Fastily, who did the deletion, or else send another mail. I note that File:Tresor Otshudi.JPG is there in commons, and has been since 2010.
Incidentally, for future reference, your page should be called just "Draft:Tresor Otshudi": we don't add further information to a title unless it is required to distinguish the page from others of the same name. But don't bother changing it now: when your draft is reviewed and accepted, the reviewer will move it to the right name in article space. --ColinFine (talk)
If an an e-mail has already been sent to OTRS please do not send another. The first email will be in the permissions queue with many others (currently 900+) and will be reviewed by a volunteer in due course.--ukexpat (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

My article has been declined and don't seem to get what is wrong with it

Hello My article has been declined and don't seem to get what is wrong with it. All the bestSpecial:Contributions/samanthaluvs (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Special:Contributions/samanthaluvs, welcome to the Wikipedia Teahouse. Your article is declined because you do not have a Wikipedia account. If you have a minute, consider creating one. It's an easy way to keep track of your contributions and helps you communicate with the rest of the community. All you need to register is a username and password. However, if you would like to continue editing anonymously, that's fine too. Thanks. Ikhtiar H (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Special:Contributions/samanthaluvs, to add to the answer given above, the only edits I can see on your account are this question and one at the Help desk. Did you perhaps just forget to log in when you wrote these questions? In that case, please provide us with the name of the article you were working on and we will be able to help you. w.carter-Talk 13:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello. When Draft:Saturnia (band) was declined the note left at the top of the page stating the decline reasons had a number of links in it that further explained the words being used. To wit, it said:

"This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."

Did you click on any of those links to see what the concepts meant? There is a larger problem however. The draft was a blatant copyright violation, which has now been noted in its deletion log. Please do not copy and paste any copyrighted text again. Note that if you are the owner of the text, we could only use it if you or someone else with ownership of over the copyright, released it to the world under a compatible free copyright license (or into the public domain); we could not use it simply with your permission for our use here. If this content was suitable in the first place to be in an encyclopedia article—it was very promotional and could not be used in the form submitted anyway—some of the the methods for provided a copyright release are set out at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ikhtiar H:, I don't think not having a Wikipedia account alone would be grounds for rejecting an article. I'm not able to see who created Draft:Saturnia (band) since it was deleted, but if 85.241.24.149 has a consistent IP address, then he/she must have an account anyway since his/her contributions didn't show the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Wait, deleted contributions don't show up. Anyway, I believe unregistered users can create articles in draft space and have them accepted. Someone tell me if that's wrong.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Correct.--ukexpat (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

All references to AIPAC are deleted from Washington Institute for Near East Policy

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy was created in 1985 as a spinoff of AIPAC.

The article Washington Institute for Near East Policy originally described some of the relationships between the Washington Institute and AIPAC. Over the years, every mention of AIPAC has been deleted from the article.

I just looked up the article, and saw nothing about AIPAC, so looked it up myself and added something to the Criticism section, making sure to use a WP:RS (Foreign Affairs).

My edit was quickly deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy&action=history by an editor who apparently disagrees with the WP:RSs on the basis of his own personal opinion.

What should I do? I don't want to get into a long edit war. I don't want to get into an argument with an editor who will just repeat, "Well I think it's biased" and delete it. I went to the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration but they haven't been active recently. --Nbauman (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nbauman. You have not provided a link to the Foreign Affairs source, so that other editors can read it and evaluate it. Please do so. Please explain how it is relevant and worthy of mention that a group was founded 30 years ago by a person previously employed by another group. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. The appropriate place to discuss this issue is the talk page of the article, which was once quite active. I see no discussion there in the last year and a half. Have you proposed your changes there, or otherwise commented there? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I have now read your actual edit (I hadn't previously) and agree with the reverting editor that it is "highly biased". I recommend that you study the neutral point of view before editing in the Israel/Palestine area, which is subject to strict sanctions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
(1) Why is the Foreign Affairs article "highly biased"? That seems totally subjective. What is the text of the specific Wikipedia guidelines that it violates that cause it to be biased?
(2) Even if it is biased, so what? WP allows biased sources. According to WP:RS WP:BIASED:
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
What is the specific Wikipedia guideline that requires us to delete a supposedly biased source that is a WP:RS?
I am familiar with WP:NPOV, and I've read it many times. What is the specific text in WP:NPOV that you are referring to? In my reading, it says the opposite of your position.
WP:NPOV says:
As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone....
A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid.
WP:NPOV links to the essay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete which says
It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.
So WP:NPOV prohibits deleting material because of bias.
Please explain, with citations to the text of WP guidelines, why the Foreign Affairs article is biased, and even if it is, why it should be deleted from WP. --Nbauman (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say the article you cited was highly biased. I expressed the opinion that your edit was highly biased, Nbauman. I will say no more than that, because I do not want to get involved in this contentious area. The place for further discussion is the article's talk page, and you need to gain consensus there for any additions you propose to make. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Mismatched Talk Page

If you click on 'talk' on the Jon Jones (the fighter) page it takes you to the Jon Jones (director) talk page. How do you fix that? Chuy1530 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the redirect code from Talk:Jon Jones and copied a message about him from the director's talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Chuy1530 (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

is it acceptable entry?

Hello, I would like to ask if entry "Diadem Cosmetics" will be accepted by administrators. I want to create create entry in Polish, as globally this is not very well known firm. Even in Poland they are not extremaly visible, however they are doing quite interesting type of CSR. I do not have any connections with the firm apart from knowing the owner's son. Thank you for your response. Ideon21 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, nice to have someone joining us. Minor point, we have WP: ADMINS but this not among their duties. Major point, if it's not well known then you'll have difficultly meeting Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia is not for making the invisible visible. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ideon21 and welcome to the Teahouse. To add to the information above: This is the English Wikipedia and all articles here must be in English. If you want to write articles in Polish, you have to do so on the Polish Wikipedia. Best, w.carter-Talk 17:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Subject of Notability

This has nothing to do with the article that I originally attempted to write, but comments about the exclusion of a reference to a person who was not considered "notable". The person excluded from an article was a tutor to the "notable" person whom the article was about. So I ask do we only include that Haydn was a teacher of Beethoven because Haydn, himself was a notable person. Then perhaps we should edit the article about Johann Sebastian Bach and exclude his brother, Johann Christoph Bach, and his father, Johann Abrosius Bach, because if they had not been related Johann Sebastian Bach, and played a part in his musical education, no one probably would have taken note of them. They were not really famous or notable in and of themselves. I contest that sometimes a person is notable simply because they played a part in the life of someone else who would be considered "notable". I think your rules on "notability are just a little too stringent, because if you would enforce those rules in the article about Johann Sebastian Bach, I believe there would be a lot of people missing. I'm not advocating that we make people notable because they walked down the same street as the notable person did, but if they played a significant role in their lives, perhaps they should be included. 98.239.215.41 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

98.239.215.41 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Notability is not inherited. If you would like to discuss this, I recommend The Policy Village Pump, or perhaps someone there can point you to a better place to discuss the situation.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, IP user. Notability is a criterion for being the subject of an article, not for being mentioned in an article about a different subject. Somebody, not themselves notable, who was of some significance in the subject's life (and is reliably documented as such) may certainly be mentioned in the article. The question of whether the person's role is significant enough to be mentioned may be subject to discussion, of course. --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The person edited out was a tutor and certainly could have made a significant contribution to the person the article was about, but they were edited out because they were not considered a notable person. It seems that not all editors are applying this policy as you described it. Mark Clark - TurntheHeartTurntheHeart (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

How do I get my article to live?

Hi there,

I am very new to Wikipedia in terms of creating my own articles. Just wondering, could you help me with regards to getting my article to go live? I'm not sure what exactly is missing but I have tried to add as much information and references as I could.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliyas Hafiz (talk • contribs) 14:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Iliyas Hafiz. You get it reviewed by inserting {{subst:submit}} into the top of it. But don't do that yet, because it will not be accepted. As a general rule, every single piece of information in an article needs to be individually referenced to a reliable published source, and most of it to sources unconnected with the subject. Please see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

how can I get a new page started about the Coworking Institute

The Coworking Institute, established by myself in 1999, predates the establishment of coworking as described here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coworking - The author of the coworking page at one time mentioned that my use of the term was an antecedent to his, but he found that it somehow proved confusing, and wished to make a clean separation between his use of the term and mine. Rather than make the distinction clear on his coworking page, he chose to remove all references to my use of it. I believe, however, that there are some very useful connections to be made, and would like to go about doing so. However, as I am the person who coined the term as well as started the Coworking Institute, I realize there would be conflict of interest and I would not be able to create such a page. I would like therefore to find someone who would be interested in doing that.

I do not at all contest that Brad's use of the term "coworking" to describe the idea of a shared, and hopefully communal office space is original to him. I do want to make clear, however, that I did use the term "coworking" - actually earlier than 1999, but as far as the wayback machine is able to document, 1999 - http://web.archive.org/web/19990429122650/http://technography.com/ - which is a good enough date to establish my prior use - to describe what I called "working together as equals." It seems to me that this is very much in the same spirit as Brad's use of the term. And it is also true that I linked the use to computers. Here's a bit more of the history of my use of the term: I had developed a methodology I called "technography" for facilitating meetings. It was based on using a single computer (at that time, computers were hard to come by and never found in meeting rooms) with a big projector to help document and organize collaborative work, especially brainstorming and strategic planning meetings. I've written about that extensively, first in 1986 in a publication called "Power Meetings." Later in 1990 is a book called "Connected Executives". Here's an article from the LA Times - http://articles.latimes.com/2000/mar/29/business/fi-13745 - describing a bit more about my use - and an article by Michael Schrage which shows me using the domain - http://www.co-intelligence.org/CItidbits-SchrageCollab.html - I established the CoWorking Institute in which Gerrit later joined me in the capacity of archivist to help document other applications of technology to support collaborative work. When I discovered that Brad had started using that term, I was delighted, and supported him totally in his efforts to apply it to his concept, granting him the use coworking.com and coworking.org - Gerrit and I decided to keep coworking.net I feel that conceptually, we are working towards the same ends, which is why I feel so good about his use of the word. On the other hand, I do believe that, though he may not have known about my prior use of the term, that reference to me, not as the originator of his use of the term, but as the originator of the term itself, is both merited and of value to all parties.

I did a search on the Internet hoping I could find some sources. I did find these links mentioning the Coworking Institute by name http://coworking.net/ | Welcome to The CoWorking Institute (this link is current, the only domain we kept) http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2004/06/11/coworking-institute/ | elearnspace › Coworking Institute http://www.livestream.com/coworkingnews | Daily News from the Coworking Institute - live streaming video powered by Livestream http://www.newhois.net/www/coworking.net.html | coworking.net - Welcome to The CoWorking Institute | The CoWorking Institute .. http://www.topictimes.com/videos/film/better-meetings-full-Pct9GfM5m5A.html | Better Meetings http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/17690 | It's A Match http://www.mcgeesmusings.net/2002/03/05.html | McGee's Musings http://www.co-intelligence.org/CItidbits-SchrageCollab.html | Michael Schrage on Collaboration http://www.cognexus.org/id27.htm | Related Work http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Bernie-DeKoven/21462041 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/amazing-what-you-can-do-with-a-little-electronic-duct-tape/article4147877/

Bernard De Koven 20:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorfun (talk • contribs)

Hello, Majorfun. As you have a conflict of interest, you might need to put some basic detail about yourself on your user page if you intend to involve yourself in this project. If the institute is notable (per the usual sourcing guidelines here) then I don't see why it shouldn't have a page, but given the COI rules, I suggest you use one of the services on offer to draft and request help and assistance, such as WP:Articles for Creation, or make a request on WP:Requested Articles. LouiseS1979 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

here's one more reference - http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/156192/The-History-Of-Coworking-Presented-By-Deskmag#vars!date=1996-10-05_21:36:23! - sadly, I still haven't found any clear direction as to what the best next step might be.

Bernard De Koven 21:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorfun (talk • contribs)

Hello, Majorfun, I'm not sure exactly what you want/need to hear from us here, but assuming those sources fit the reliable sources guidelines, then you can just go ahead and write the article. If you want to create a draft article and submit it to WP:Articles for creation for feedback before it gets accepted, I'm sure that's possible; just don't forget to mention your conflict of interest WRT the Institute itself. Or you can make the article yourself directly into the main Wikipedia space - all users can do that. LouiseS1979 (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
No, please don't do that and please be very careful advising users who have a COI to do so. Users with a COI are strongly advised not to create articles about their subjects (although it is not prohibited). --ukexpat (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice - but I'm not sure what step I should take next. Any suggestions would be welcome.

Bernard De Koven 19:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorfun (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_292&oldid=641950191"