Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 305

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 300←Archive 303Archive 304Archive 305Archive 306Archive 307→Archive 310

Setting expectations for article changes to be made.

I'm a marketing employee at the University of Arizona. Looking to avoid any conflict of interest issues, I suggested some updates on the article's talk page. I've included them below:

Provided new rankings data on our “talk” page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Arizona#Rankings

Provided new employment, enrollment and endowment figures — plus a suggestion to update endowment information under “Research” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Arizona#Enrollment.2C_Employment_.26_Endowment_data

Two questions:

1) Are there other actions I can take to help the changes make it to the article?

2) What expectations should I set to co-workers regarding the turnaround time for these requests?

Thanks for any time and help

Barrettbaffert (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Barrettbaffert: Conflicts of interest generally only appear when you're trying to change information in articles so as to convey a certain perception (i.e. give undue weight to the positive while giving no heed to the negative) as this can be harmful to Wikipedia's goal of presenting neutral information. It's a very strict policy that article content must be neutral. However, if you can cite it with a reliable source, and avoid these words that might be construed as puffing or inflating certain aspects of your organization, then you're fine. In this particular case though, there's no way to embellish ranking numbers. It's pretty open-shut, numbers are numbers, so I would advise just adding the rankings yourself and keeping the citations intact. I do have three suggestions though: (1) adding bare link as references is generally bad practice. There is a gadget that can help you add some special templates we have for citing sources (Go here; under the "Editing" section, you should see "refToolbar", check that. Now, when you go to edit a page, there will be a "Cite" link in the toolbar at the top of the edit window. Click it, and in the very first dropdown menu, you should see "cite web". From there a dialog box will pop up; fill in the boxes and you can cite your individual sources. It's quite useful.) (2) I'd suggest you add a date somewhere in the table so people now when this was relevant. (3) I'd suggest you go to your userpage here and create it, clearly stating your COI disclaimer. "COI Disclaimer: I work for .... If you feel I've erred in one of my edits, or one of my edits create bias, please don't hesitate to point it out to me on my talk page." All the best with editing and I hope to see you around! Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How long does it take for a page to get approved from a draft?

How long does it take for a page to get approved from a draft, on average? I developed a page called Tallest buildings outside of Boston a while ago and it is still in draft form. Any suggestions or comments?Mountainfister2015 (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! At the moment there is a very large backlog for drafts so possibly more than a month. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 21:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this about Draft:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Massachusetts_(Outside_of_Boston_city_limits)? That draft is not currently in the queue to be reviewed. If it is ready for review, click the green button to submit the draft. RudolfRed (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

patrolling

Recently "DragonflySixtyseven" patrolled my page. I would like to thank him or her, but I don't understand how to contact them. So I'll just park this comment in the "teahouse" for now and say Hi, and thank you Dragonfly Sixtyseven for patrolling my page. Lbhiggin (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, patrolling means that he checked that there was nothing illicit (against wiki policy) on your page. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 22:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A company I work for has changed names; I would like to updated to the new name in an existing external link. Can I do this?

I work for Roam Transport Systems (formerly MegaRail Transportation Systems). The existing article on Dual-mode transit lists the company by our old name (MegaRail) in an external link in paragraph three. I would like to change link to our new name. If you check the external link, you can see it resolves to the new company page. Is this a significant enough change to fall into the WP:COI threshold? If so, how can best can I request a correction? Carl Henderson (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I have removed the external link along with others because Wikipedia doesn't use in line external links in this manner. Theroadislong (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Carl Henderson. In answer to your first question: certainly not. I've removed several of the links there, that were to particular manufacturers (see external links for the policy). In one case the link related to a different sense of dual-mode - a hybrid car. In answer to your second question: emphatically yes. Ideally, every single statement in an article should be referenced to a independent reliable published source. The article would be vastly improved if somebody would find independent sources that describe and discuss the subject (but not just a single commercial implementation of it) and write a summary of what these sources say. Once the article is fully cited, then any editor may remove the 'unreferenced' tag. Please see referencing for beginners for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
My second question was imprecise. I know how to do references in Wikipedia; I checking to see if adding references to an article I have a COI with would be within generally accepted practices if I were to add them in a NPOV manner. From your response, I'm assuming the answer is "yes".Carl Henderson (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I've just found the WP:COIADVICE section. This would have answered most of my questions had I read the entire COI in the first place. Sorry for the unnecessary questions here.Carl Henderson (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Updated the Dual-mode transit page and fixed references, an external link, clarified paragraph three, and declared COI on talk page. Please feel free to review to make sure all is within Wikipedia policies. Carl Henderson (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
May I add, welcome back to the project after your long absence. I hope you will decide to stay. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 22:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable article idea

Hello I would like to write an article on one of the requested topics of Wikipedia, which is “Business plan software”. Given the fact that I have already had an unsuccessful experience with the writing an article I would like to ask beforehand whether the topic I chose is an appropriate thing to write an article about. Will it be relevant to make it in a way of describing what business plan software is made for and the description of the popular software which can be found on internet. Thank you in advance for your reply Lavnastya (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lavnastya. Yes it is a good topic. However a Wikipedia article is different from a magazine article or essay on the topic. In those articles a writer will describe, analyze, compare, and draw conclusions. An encyclopedia just reports. So you need references to published articles or books that have already done the describing, analyzing, etc. It can't be your own research. The article also needs to be formal in tone, impersonal (no I or we), and dispassionate (no talking about the "wonderfulness" of something; leave out most types of adjectives). See Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Start with the history of such software. Mention specific software as part of the development of business plan software over time. Don't include a separate list of software. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@Lavnastya: and @StarryGrandma:, I'm not sure I agree it is a good topic for a NEW article. This happens all the time on technology related articles, we get several different articles that are really about the same topic. For example Enterprise Content Management, Content management, Content Management system, there are actually even more but I hope you see my point. Now I have no idea what the OP meant by “Business plan software”. That term can be used in many different ways: Project management software like MS project, Process modeling software to analyze and reengineer business processes, Strategic software for providing high level views of the business called Enterprise Dashboards, and I'm sure if I gave it some thought I could think up more examples. Its a very generic term so of course when you google it you will get a zillion hits on wildly different topics. My advise to the OP is to first do a search on the various possible synonyms for what he means by "Business Plan software" and then make sure that there isn't an existing article already. If there is then add what you know and have solid wikipedia:references for to that existing article. Only if there are no articles on what you mean by those words (which frankly would amaze me unless what you are doing is wp:original research) then you should try to create a new article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Lavnastya and MadScientistX11, I am assuming software to help a company develop a business plan as in: Gail Hiduke; J. Ryan (2013). Small Business: An Entrepreneur's Business Plan. Cengage Learning. pp. 414–. ISBN 1-285-16995-6.. This type of software is what comes up first in a Google search. Is this what you wanted to write about? StarryGrandma (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@StarryGrandma:, If that is what he means then I think this article might already cover it: Strategic_planning_software Keep in mind that was after 5 seconds of searching. That article looks not very good so I think improving it would be great. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@StarryGrandma: and @Lavnastya:as I look back over my comments I want to apologize. I wasn't very welcoming and encouraging. So let me say if that is what you mean it is a good topic, there doesn't seem to be much in the encyclopedia so far. I still think the best way would be to expand that current article, that article is much broader than Business Plan software but it specifically mentions creating Business Plans as one kind of software that comes under Strategic_planning_software but it doesn't say much else so my preference would still be to expand that article rather than create a new one. But I could see going the other way too. Also, if that wasn't what you meant please reply back and tell us what you do mean and we can give you some more guidance. I (obviously) think its a rather serious problem that Wikipedia tends to accumuate so many different and inconsistent technical articles that are essentially on the same topic but I shouldn't bring my personal crusades to the teahouse. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear StarryGrandma and MadScientistX11

Thank you very much for your fast reply. The truth is, I got an assignment from my Professor to write a Wikipedia article on one of the topics from Management or Business area which does not exist on Wikipedia. Hence, of course I dont want to write about the same thing that already exist or I am currently not going to edit any of the articles, because this is not what the task is about. Thats why I made my question to be sure, that I will write about something that have a chance to survive on Wikipedia. But apparently it doesnt. I have never thought it can be such a challenging task to find a missing topic Lavnastya (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest Lavnastya I think its a little unfair of your professor to give you such a task. Whatever business text book(s) you are using I would bet that for every chapter and most of the major names and concepts in the index there already exists a Wikipedia article for them. Also, writing a high quality article, especially on something complex like a business concept is not easy. I'm a pretty smart guy and I didn't attempt to write a new article until I had been editing for over a year. It is much better for a new user to start out by editing an existing page so that they can get experience in the basics of Wikipedia first. BTW, feel free to point your professor to this discussion, here is the full URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Acceptable_article_idea Although, I understand if you don't want to. Anyway, good luck. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Lavnastya: Hey! I just had a brainstorm. There are various wikipedia:projects that keep lists of article that need improving and new articles that need to be written. The business project seemed to be the best place to start and sure enough they have a list of articles that need to be written: User:Skysmith/Missing_topics_about_Business_and_Economics BTW, that article is under a specific user which is rare, at least in my experience, for a project but it was linked to from the main business project page which is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Business There are many other projects as well. You also might be able to get help from people with deep business knowledge from one of those projects. Hope that helps. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

AS Wikipedia Biased, in absolutely any way?

Is Wikipedia biased, in absolutely any way al all? Please give a descriptive answer. Thank you. Frogger48 (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Frogger, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Wikipedia strives to be as neutral as possible, per our policy on neutrality. Of course, being openly editable, some bias gets inserted into articles by editors, but we work to clean this up and make it non-biased.
However, we also have another policy on giving due weight to the various opinions. This may appear to make articles biased. For example, people who believe fringe theories about the Apollo 11 landing may view the article on the landing as biased, since the article does not primarily cover their theory. However, this is simply giving the various opinions the weight they deserve, based on the commonality of them. Most people do not believe the fringe theories about the landing, so the article does not primarily discuss them. Feel free to ask any more questions that you may have. Regards, --Biblioworm 23:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I am honestly hoping Wikipedia is not just another multi-national cooperation that appears to support humanity equally and fairly and truthfully, but in real life is only pretending to be this way in order to make more money, etc. Frogger48 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Very many questions. First, just another multinational corporation? Yes. Well, to be precise, Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation who also own several other things and these products are distributed in many nations. That's why I'm saying yes. Of course, it's possible you mean something else by "multi-national corporation" and that might make this answer incorrect. You can refine the question, if you like. Anyway I'll settle for answering the first one until other answers arrive. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been wanting to complain about this for a while. Where are my wikipedia stock options? I know we haven't done the IPO yet but still ;-) The way I see it is that there is no such thing as a completely objective source or media on anything. We are human beings and as such we have biases and preconceived notions that we are reluctant to challenge and also are seldom completely aware of. There is solid science behind this btw, the best book is The Folly of Fools by evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers. So of course there is some bias in Wikipedia and we should do as much as we can to limit and counteract it but we will never get to being completely without bias. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It is certainly good to show where these specific biases are, on Wikipedia. What do you mean by IPO, MadscientistX11? Frogger48 (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Frogger48. MadscientistX11 was joking, I believe, and was referring to an Initial public offering, where early participants in a profit making business sometimes receive major financial benefits. This is a non-profit, and our editors receive no such monetary benefits, except personal satisfaction. I got a sweatshirt once, though. I am wearing it at this very moment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Nice. So, what are you saying Cullen328? Is the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects trustful and trustworthy? do they have secretarian biases and partisan? Also, something else, how come that Wikipedia appears to be hard toward non-minstream scientific views (or pseudosciences) ? Frogger48 (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Frogger48 Wikipedia is not hard towards non-mainstream scientific views and pseudo science, its just that Wikipedia articles should be verifiable, with no original research and written with a neutral point of view. So back to your original question, I guess the answer could be 'Yes' - Wikipedia is biased towards information that can be shown to be reliable. Any non-mainstream scientific view can get onto Wikipedia as long as their are good sources. If an idea is actually scientific then the proponents should be able to work on research and writing scientific papers to back up the claims. Examples of this would LENR - just a couple of years ago any attempt to mention got removed, but all though still being a fringe idea there are enough sources that it is now covered on Cold fusion. KylieTastic (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Frogger48 and Cullen328 On the IPO thing, yes it was a joke and yes that is what I was referring to an Initial Public Offering. If Wikipedia were a for profit it would have been a startup like Facebook and Google were and IPOs apply to startups. Sorry, I often forget what a huge diverse number of editors we have and that while everyone I know knows what IPO means that definitely wouldn't apply to everyone, probably not even most on Wikipedia. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Kylietastic When you state "any attempt to mention got removed, but all though still being a fringe idea" maybe further expand on this. Thank yoo Frogger48 (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Frogger48 There is a project that is relevant to all this that I encourage you to check out: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Internal error notice on a talk page

Hi - My first article was recently posted and I want to contact the reviewer who approved it. It was classified as a stub, and I would like to ask how I can improve it. However, the editor's Talk Page says "click here to leave a message", but doing that results in an error message (pasted below). Any thoughts?

[2b9facbe] 2015-02-11 00:46:36: Fatal exception of type Scribunto_LuaInterpreterNotFoundError

Buckmor54 (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Buckmor54: Hi Buckmor. You could post to the user talk page in the usual manner but I believe I have just fixed the problem with the coding at User:Onel5969's talk page so the link at the top that gave this error should work now. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It worked perfectly. Buckmor54 (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

How does one go about removing the User sandbox template?

This sandbox is in the Draft namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the "User sandbox" template. How does one go about removing the User sandbox template? I created a page in my sandbox and submitted it for approval. After submitting it, I submitted it as a Draft, and then got this message on the top of the page. I am a little confused on the current status of the page sent in for approval. Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Milosinawava (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! I will do it for you, see the diff of my change to the draft to see how it is done for future reference. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 21:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Once the page is moved. Does that then clear my Sandbox and allow me to begin creating another page in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milosinawava (talk • contribs) 21:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That's true, KylieTastic, but moving normally leaves a redirection around, so after Milosinawava moved it, there was a redirect left in their sandbox, so it might have looked to them as if it wasn't moved. I have cleared that redirect out, Milosinawava, leaving your sandbox empty. (I wouldn't normally go into somebody else's sandbox uninvited, but I thought you would find this more helpful). --ColinFine (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I was just in my Sandbox and contemplating that dilemma. So, thank you very much for doing that! So, at this point, where exactly is the Draft:Cecil Garland page residing as it awaits an editor to review? Milosinawava (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's in Draft:Cecil Garland, Milosinawava. It's just been reviewed, a few minutes ago, and I'm afraid it hasn't been accepted. Please read the links that Dodger67 has left you in the decline notice. --ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn AfD

I withdrew an AfD I proposed here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ale Resnik. How can I get it closed? Deunanknute (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, an uninvolved person will close it soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 Done --Biblioworm 13:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are some people here anonymous?

It is stupid. When I signed up I saw no option for this. How do they? Why? I tried to thank someone that has all the numbers like 774.088669.399 but I can't. You should have to have a name here, I don't care what your name is but you should have one. I believe thier called IP adresses. DangerousJXD (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the teahouse DangerousJXD If you wanted to propose changing a wikipedia:policy the place to do that is here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) But I wouldn't recommend trying to change this one. Its well established and I think the vast majority of editors would want to keep it. For what its worth I completely agree with you. I think this is a policy (like several others I would change if it was in my control) that dates back to the earliest days of wikipedia. The idea was that we wanted to encourage as many people to be editors as possible so we didn't want to have any barriers to editing, people could just jump right in and start typing without having to establish a user ID. In the early days I think that made sense. Wikipedia needed to achieve a critical mass, get brand recognition, etc. Also, in those early days there were a lot fewer people on the Internet so those that were on it tended to be better educated than the average population. BTW, you are correct those numbers are Internet Protocol numbers, the unique number assigned to your device or computer that lets the rest of the Internet know where to send back requsts for data. If you make an edit without being logged in the system just takes your IP address and uses that as your user ID but of course as a result there are a lot of things that can't work as they would with someone who has an ID. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello there, DangerousJXD. There is an irony in the question you raise. There is an assumption among many that the best way to edit anonymously is to decline to open a Wikipedia account, and just edit. That is entirely incorrect. The editor's IP address is disclosed. That may reveal their home town, and in some cases, it may also reveal their school, their employer, their mobile phone carrier or other personal information.
On the other hand, an editor who creates an account, choosing a generic user name, disclosing no personal identifying information, and who edits in compliance with our policies and guidelines, enjoys the highest degree of anonymity. No one knows their gender, age, race, nationality, or even continent of residence. That's by far the best way to edit anonymously.
I choose another path. I believe in openness as an editor. I disclose my real name (Jim Heaphy), my home town, age, family and career information, and so on. I have nothing to hide and recommend openness for those who are fully prepared to be open. But many editors have legitimate reasons for anonymity. In my opinion, the best way to edit anonymously is to open an account and then to decline to reveal personally identifying information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi DangerousJXD. To clarify a bit in plain talk, an IP number is sort of the address for your computer or phone, and having that number it's fairly easy for a person with computer knowledge to track that computer down. So not so anonymous. However, a computer or a computer address can be used by many people and that is why you cannot thank that "address". For example: Big companies or entire universities can have the same IP address, and thanking that you would be thanking everyone there! These shared IP addresses can sometimes result in "unusual" things. Like when the IP for the United States House of Representatives was temporarily banned from editing Wikipedia because someone there was using that address for vandalism. I have also seen somewhere here, can't remember where, that there are editors who live in countries where the Internet is sketchy or controlled in some ways, who prefer to edit from different IPs for some reason. Remember that this is an international site and it's open to everyone whatever their preferences in identifying themselves are. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 10:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
You wrote "When I signed up I saw no option for this. How do they?". Anonymous users are simnply users who do not sign up. If you don't log in to your account then you are also anonymous. But as others say, "anonymous" means your IP address is revealed when you edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@W.carter: Sorry but all those arguments you make are arguments FOR having a user ID not against. As Cullen328 rightly pointed out you are MORE anonymous when you have a user ID but don't announce who you are then when you don't login and leave your IP address. I would never edit with just an IP address for that reason alone. I'm a bit of an extremist when it comes to the security of my computers and network and exposing my IP address would be something I would never want to do on ANY site. There is nothing about having a user ID that requires you to use the same IP address. I know that for a fact because I've logged in from different devices in different parts of the country. The use of anonymizers or things like the Tor browser are different and use of those is typically discouraged but can be allowed for people in the circumstances you describe. But even in those cases you can and would want to have a user ID rather than just leave whatever IP address the anonymizer generated, it puts one more level of indirection between you and your computer. I honestly can't see a good rational reason for not doing what @DangerousJXD: implied in his initial question and requiring that everyone login before they edit. I think its just one of those things that people cling to because its always been that way and they don't like change but I think Dangerous is totally right we should require people to login if they are going to make any edits. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@MadScientistX11: I was not arguing either for or against ID or IP, simply stating how it worked. Please do not read an argument where there is none. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 13:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

non-admin AfD closure

recently an Afd discussion (here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christi_Lynn_McGarry) was closed by a non-admin. I believe this closure was premature and inappropriate. The closing user account is only a month and a half old. I also believe the closing user may have a COI with the subject due to location. This user has also semi-recently been blocked and has had issues with inappropriate editing. I don't want to re-open the AfD myself, since I have contributed to it. How do I dispute the closure? Deunanknute (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I second this, but don't know the logistics. Also note that the closer was one of the premature RfA people from awhile ago, and has been blocked recently. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 17:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi and welcome to both of you. Typically you would ask an admin to review the closure per WP:BADNAC but since I'm not involved in the discussion and given your points and the existing discussion, I've undone the close. We'll see if anyone complains. --NeilN talk to me 17:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

How do I insert a picture?

Hello I am new here and would like to know how to put a picture on a page. It is one taken from my own camera.Lbhiggin (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous and Bad Citations

Recently I joined the Wikipedia to edit an article. I use wiki as a reference source for my school, but not as a primary source due to questionable sources. I also donate to support wikipedia because I believe in the content that wiki offers its readers. However, in the page I question, a user has continued to post defamatory and erroneous sources. I have deleted but they keep adding them back. Is there a solution to this? The information is quite harmful to the reputation of the page's focus. Page: Taylor Lianne Chandler. Thank you for your timeEatprayswimm (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The formatting of the references led to problems in the article. And the material was entered poorly. You may not like the information, but the sources are reliable. You can't take out material that has been reported in reliable sources, however unfortunate it appears for the subject of an article. The subject of the article can request that the entire page be removed, but that is generally done only for people that aren't well-known publically. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Would you define what Wikipedia classifies a reliable source? Information provided to the unreliable sources (such as enstarz, hollywoodgossip, etc.) has been done so by the subject, Taylor Lianne Chandler. They are personal interviews and no information has been verified by outside sources. This concerns me the current use of Wikipedia. Again, thank you for your time.Eatprayswimm (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Eatprayswimm, you removed material that cited the Washington Post and The Guardian, as well as those less reliable sites. What is factual is that Chandler said these things about herself, but they weren't verified, and the article should reflect this. What she said and the news coverage of her saying it is what she is well-known for. You are fine to insist on reliable sources, but she did mention Michael Phelps, and it was reported that she did in reliable sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Most of the information on the page is erroneous and cited by less-than-reputable sources. If this is what Wikipedia tolerates as a viable source, than so be it. I will continue to add the "reputable" sites such as POYI.org, but will wait until all edits seem to resolve themselves. Eatprayswimm (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
You have already violated WP:3RR and are likely to be blocked shortly - Arjayay (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

talk page cleanup/time table

I recently started editing some articles, specifically glaucoma. I've seen this in other articles though as well and am not sure how to proceed. I tend to look at the talk page, see what type of suggestions people are making, and if they seem reasonable try to fix the issue. Afterwards I'm not sure if I should delete the item in the talk page or what to do. I've seen many talk pages where there are many suggestions/issues that people have raised, that seem to have been dealt with in the article, but the talk page still acts like its an outstanding problem. I had trouble finding specific information on when its okay to delete or archive portions of the talk page.

Second question, if someone were to put a "more references need" template in a section and still maybe two years later there are still many uncited claims with no references, is there a certain timetable when it becomes reasonable to just remove the uncited material? Thanks Ljeyrich (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Ljeyrich, I've not come across any policies on these however I can venture a few comments. With the talk page you could maybe archive the old items (I've seen that done on some pages before). You could at least go though and mark any sections that have been implemented to make it clear maybe with a {{Resolved mark}}  Resolved or {{Done}}  Done - with an appropriate comment. If really keen - do both ;) — On the second issue it depends on the subject and how 'dubious' the information is. If it's a WP:BLP issue the unsourced material should be removed quickly. Otherwise I would say it's on a case by case basis. If it sounds dubious I would remove if it's old, especially if a quick google found nothing. However it the information may be correct but just without a good reference then I would leave. Basically if you think its not good remove (Be bold), but don't just remove because their is not a reference. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Tool down, editor already notified

A tool mantained by a veteran editor has been down for almost five months now, and that editor's talk page has three comments on it (including mine, today) from other users. What to do in that case? I would like to edit one page which uses that tool, but don't want to seem rude about it. Just today I wrote the third note on the veteran editor's talk page. The other two notes were written by two other different editors, within months of each other. In wikipedia editing time (if there is such a thing), is it the right time to do something about it? Capikiw (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Hello Capikiw and welcome to the Teahouse! I have to guess based on your contributions you are talking about Atethnekos's Toollabs:bibleversefinder tool. Since it is on labs, it shouldn't be hard to get a new maintainer to be able to restart it if Atethnekos can't be found. This question would have been much better suited for WP:VPT, but you're in luck! If the maintainer can't be found there is a tool takeover protocol being developed and someone should be able to take responsibility for the tool to keep it up and running. :) I'll do some research on it and let you know what I find on your talk page. :) Happy editing — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, "Technical 13," for the info (not for "blowing my cover" :D). Yup, I was referring to it, but didn't want to push "Atethnekos" anymore than what has already been posted on his/her talk page (that editor must be having lots of trouble with the person who keeps writing/fighting on muslim issues). The changes I mentioned I wanted to do were more in the line of hyperlinking in a specific article to another site, at least while the tool becomes available. I'm new in the registered world, but not too new to editing wikipedia. I think I'm not quite willing/ready to mantaining anything long-term (not sure what it would entail). Thanks again for the info on where to bring up issues like this one. Question: Why does your username appear with "U|" in plain text in front of it? - Capikiw (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
OK. Got it. Sorry for rushing. Might look into Wikipedia pinging later. Thanks. How do I add an automatic watch on Phab:T87730? I added your page in wikimedia and the rfc page (a bit confusing that last page contents's section...if you ask me...only numbers for topics, not titles). I hope that'd be enough (I should be looking for work :P ... any paid positions at Wikipedia? :) But with a very free-range schedule :P)

Am I being watched?

Feels like it. It's not a bad or good feeling but it feels like I keep seeing the same people on pages I've just edited for example. I'm guessing that's normal. --DangerousJXD (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi DangerousJXD. Yes, of course you are! :) We all are. Especially when someone is in the spotlight with good questions like you, here at the Teahouse. People see your edits and get interested and do some tweaks of their own. When I was new here I had two editors who looked after me and saw to it that I did good edits. I called them my guardian angels. See you around, w.carter-Talk 22:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi DangerousJXD there are also other reasons you may bump into the same people. If your editing on a topic (such as basketball) there will be others who are also going though articles on the same topic. People interested in a topic may be watching pages about that topic, and thus checking when they see edits. Some people watch Recent Changes and may just be active at the same time, and doing changes while checking other edits. Hopefully its not because you're leaving errors and they are fixing up behind you ;) I'm sure other reasons exist. KylieTastic (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

How do I edit an image file?

Hello again. I am testing how to upload an image from my computer, and have received a message about copyright and alternative text. The file was misspelled Horseman at Texas Tech at Duck instead of Dusk. It is a picture of a horseman statue at the entrance of Texas Tech at dusk. I believe the horseman is Will Rogers. My license would be a free art license for this photograph. How do I edit this image file?Lbhiggin (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lbhiggin, welcome to the Teahouse! There are two separate things here.
First is the name of the file. Files can only be renamed by trusted users, and I've put in a request for that. So, you don't have to worry about it.
Then there is the license. To edit the license, go to File:Horseman at Texas Tech University at duck.jpg (this will still work after it is renamed) and edit the page.
Replace the {{untagged|...}} code with a license. When you say "free art license", do you mean the Free Art License? If so, then use {{FAL}} Otherwise, please respond here for some suggestions.
Optionally, you can also replace the description with with this to get some pretty layout:
{{Information
| description = A brief description
| source      = Where did it come from? You can say "Own work" if you made it yourself.
| date        = When was it taken?
| author      = Your name
}}
Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Lbhiggin, just a little tip: The next time you want to upload a picture, you can do that at the Commons instead, it is much easier with the licenses and all than at the Wikipedia. You start at the Upload Wizard and it will guide you through the process. The Commons is the "library" and "data bank" for pictures, sound and movie clips for all Wikipedias and once a picture is uploaded there, it can be used on any Wikipedia (different languages). Many pictures that are uploaded here at the English Wikipedia are in time transferred to the Commons. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 22:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Have updated description. Still unable to edit license status it is
Thank you for your help. I'm sorry that this seems to be so difficult for me.Lbhiggin (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

topic about "the influence of sanctions to the economy of acountry" would survive in wikipedia

I would like to write my first article and I was considering "the influence of sanctions to the economy of the country" connected with recent events on Russia and past events in the world. Would this be a topic to survive on wikipedia? Thank you for your help in advance Lyondelaliberte (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lyondelaliberte - welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for considering contributing to Wikipedia. Regarding your subject proposal, you need to tread carefully when considering what to write. Read the policy on original research: simply writing a well-sourced essay stating your own conclusions from the references isn't for Wikipedia. Rather, you would have to summarise the debate and write about e.g. International sanctions during the Ukrainian crisis or 2014–15 Russian financial crisis, in a factual, neutral tone, drawing only on what other people have said about the topic (which, as you can see from the blue links, other people have already done). If you have additional sources to add to these articles, then that would help expand them as long as you quote them directly rather than draw your own conclusions from them.
Simply put, an essay-style analysis of most topics would probably not survive long, given the close scrutiny new articles get either at New Pages Patrol or Articles for Creation. In this case it would duplicate existing topics; in other cases, people would mark it as original research, which is better published elsewhere. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 07:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
A properly written article about the economic effects of sanctions (in general, not about one particular country/instance) might be viable provided there are sufficient independent reliable sources such as academic journals or mainstream press that discuss the issue in some depth. I think it may be a good idea for you to consult experienced editors who are specifically interested in economics, you will find them at WP:WikiProject Economics. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Roger and Lyondelaliberte - looking through the Sanctions article at work (I boobed a bit by only looking up those related to Russia), it seems many of the child articles of that page could do with improving anyway - there's not an awful lot of detail on many of them. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 08:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there...

...a place to request something to be done that I don't know how to or can't do. I would like pictures to be added to these pages: Hassan Whiteside, Jimmy Butler. Obviously a picture of them on their respective pages. I have tried to learn how to but No Way. Too complicated for me. Thanks. --DangerousJXD (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi DangerousJXD their is Wikipedia:Requested pictures - all though I'm not sure if anybody is actioning those requests. The trouble is many pictures don't exist, or at least not a copyright free one. You can use site like search.creativecommons.org to look for copyright free images (but frankly I've had a hit rate of 1 in a hundred finding ones). You can also go for uploading a copyrighted image locally on EN wiki (i.e. not on commons) under "Fair use" but they can get challenged and removed if you don't put the correct justifications. For information on uploading images (copyright allowing) see Uploading images, and for information on using images see Images. — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It's just a little frustrating that I see something that needs editing and I can't do it myself. Oh well. Thanks KylieTastic. --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi DangerousJXD, if you can locate a copyright free image and then just have trouble knowing how to proceed, then just pop back here and ask. The difficult bit is finding copyright-free pictures, it may be easier to go take the picture yourself :)
Another option is to go find a picture someone has taken themselves that is copyrighted and they have uploaded to a site like flickr that does have the option of creative commons. Then contact them and persuade them to change the licence to creative commons (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) so you can copy it to Wikimedia commons. A lot of people just don't think about it and slap the copyright on, but would be happy to have their image used on Wikipedia. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
As I said KylieTastic, all that is too complicated for me. Maybe I will be able to do all that when I get more experience. On another note, take pictures of them myself?!? Lolz! Spend tonnes of money just for two pics (tickets etc.). That's funny. --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@KylieTastic: (... and maybe also 'ping' @DangerousJXD: just so you get an answer ^^) You can't use fair use on copyrighted pictures in the articles mentioned above since they are of living people. The fair use does not apply then since, as it was explained to me, "anyone can take a picture of a living person". This part of the WP policy can lead to some tricky thing when it comes to taking pictures of celebs or other noted people, as is evident on this talk page. Talk about people getting frustrated! ;) Best, w.carter-Talk 07:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Cheers for that w.carter - I didn't know that twist to the ever lasting hell of copyright law! KylieTastic (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings @DangerousJXD:, being an eternal optimist, I just posted an image request for you at Talk:Hassan Whiteside and hoping that another editor/photographer may be able to help.
At article Wikipedia:Requested pictures, drill down to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and then Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of basketball people to get the best matching category.
From there the image request line looks like this:

{{Image requested|date=February 2015|basketball people|in=Florida|in2=North Carolina|in3=the United States|of=XXXXXXXXX's picture}}

Above is then posted onto the article's Talk page. After posting, you will see the "in" categories listed on Talk page bottom. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. A fellow wikipedian created a film external link template, but now I would like to make some adjustments to how the link text is being displayed. The specific template I would like to edit is Template:MHL_catalog. The link text is currently displayed as 'Katharine Hepburn papers at the Margaret Herrick Library', but preferably it should say 'Katharine Hepburn papers, Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences'. I would also like to remove 'papers' in the template code. How do I tweak the template code and required parameters? Thanks. Lauren at Margaret Herrick Library (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Lauren. Generally to change a template you need to have a thorough understanding of how template coding works (see Help:Template) which is something I don't know about either. However, to make wording changes you may be able to manage just using common sense. Go to the template and click edit to modify what is in the edit box. Then save. Take great care not to disturb the exact syntax of the underlying coding, that is the {{...}} stuff. To see the results of your work go to a page using it and redisplay it using the purge operation. Be prepared to revert your edit if things have gone wrong. Many templates are protected from editing because of the inherent risks but this one seems not to be protected. Good luck! Thincat (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@Lauren at Margaret Herrick Library: Your username indicates a conflict of interest so I don't think you should edit the template yourself. The page history [1] shows it was recently created by User:Lugnuts who can be contacted at User talk:Lugnuts. The full display of the template for your example is:
Katharine Hepburn papers at the Margaret Herrick Library
The source does have "Katharine Hepburn papers" as a heading. Note that Margaret Herrick Library is a link. Readers can just click it if they want information about the library. The opening sentence says "owned by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)". We generally don't specify the owners of a wikilinked resource in templates like this and others in Category:External link templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I kept the text succinct, so it didn't spread across the whole screen and become overwhelming. I based it on the length of other templates commonly found in that section, such as the link to IMDB. And I created it following Lauren's original request at WT:FILM. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: I looked at the code and suggest [http://catalog.oscars.org/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId={{{1|{{{id}}}}}} {{{2|{{{name|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}}}}} papers] at the [[Margaret Herrick Library]]. That gives the same optional English parameter names as {{IMDb name}}, and {{PAGENAMEBASE}} works on articles with disambiguated titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Update made. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

adding my article to a category and subcategory

I added my article to the list of physicians within lists of physicians. Two problems arose. How do I direct the link to the subcategory? Also, on the page "Category: Physicians", the article "Alfred Worcester" has a separate page in the "Pages in Category "Physicians"" list, which I did not intend and don't know how to remove. Thank you.AgedCare14 (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi AgedCare14. There is no technical difference between subcategories and parent categories. You simply write the name of the category you actually want the article listed in. You didn't say which category you wanted but I have changed Category:Physicians to Category:Physicians from Massachusetts.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


Thank youAgedCare14 (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

editing predefinition info boxes

I have tried to edit the predefinition Info/Música/artista but appear to be stuck... My problem is that the set item list is using brazilian portuguese which I would like to change. I have changed the english version and I do not understand why the portuguese cannot be changed. Can you please explain why not? Thank you 2001:690:2006:4400:38F1:684B:C29A:6339 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello 2001:690:2006:4400:38F1:684B:C29A:6339 and welcome to the Teahouse. This is only for asking question about how to edit the English Wikipedia. If you have questions about something on the Portuguese Wikipedia, you will have to ask there. You can get help at this page: pt:Wikipédia:Portal comunitário. Each language has it's own Wikipedia and if you want to change something, you have to do it on all the languages you are interested in. That is not automatic. Best, w.carter-Talk 16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
To clarify it is possible that the article that the IP is referring to is DJ Marfox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The IP is probably Mariana Raposa (talk · contribs) since they removed their name from the first post to this thread here. It has been suggest that MR read WP:ELMINOFFICIAL so, perhaps, those of you who offer help her can offer other assistance. MarnetteD|Talk 17:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
OTOH W.carter's answer looks to be correct to the question asked. I added the above links just in case something was being lost in the language translation. MarnetteD|Talk 17:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Are you actually trying to use the Portuguese Wikipedia's template - at pt:Predefinição:Info/Música/artista ? or trying to translate the English version into Portuguese?
Infoboxes only support the parameters listed and they must be typed exactly right, so it would be much easier to start with the Portuguese template, and fill that in, than translate the English one. - Arjayay (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Mariana Raposa: I don't know Portuguese or the policies of the Portuguese Wikipedia but that article mentions European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese. You had written Info/Música/Artista instead of Info/Música/artista with lower case 'a' in artista. That was fixed in [3] You can only use parameter names a template (predefinição) has been coded to accept. See the documentation at pt:Predefinição:Info/Música/artista. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Cabals

What is the Cabal and how do I join it? Can I create my own cabal? YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi YoSoyUnHamster, welcome to the Teahouse :). There is no Cabal. The Cabals are an ingroup joke on Wikipedia. They don't actually exist, but people find pleasure in pretending they do. In order to "join" such a cabal, simply say you are a member on your userpage in one way or the other. A popular starting cabal would be the Penguin Cabal. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any further questions. All the best, Taketa (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I am a member of the Russian Hamster Cabal. To be a member of this cabal, you must be fuzzy, four-legged, Mongolian, and no more than six inches long. Most members of the Russian Hamster Cabal are devout Christians who love iconography, music, science, and math. The patron saint of the Russian Hamster Cabal is Our Lady of Vladimir, an icon of Mary painted around 1130 A.D. YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, now the Russian Hamster Cabal is official. I just made a page for it. Come join us! YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of entry

How can I delete an entry I've made?SarahSHill (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, SarahSHill, welcome to the Teahouse! That page is already up for deletion, but you can still request it yourself. Add the code {{db-author}} to the top of the page. You can also use this for anything else you've made (so long as no one else contributed anything significant to the entry). Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
How long will it take to delete the page?SarahSHill (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank youSarahSHill (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

How do I fix bad redirects?

I have noticed there are a fair number of bad redirects. They fall into two different categories: redirects from one word to a different word when they are not the same thing, and redirects that are the same word with two different meanings.

For example in the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giza_West_Field there is a reference to Prince Iunu which incorrectly redirects to Heliopolis because Iunu happens to also be the Egyptian name for Heliopolis. How do I fix this? John Chamberlain (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@John Chamberlain: See Wikipedia:Redirect#How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article, but please don't change a redirect target without checking the feature at Help:What links here, in this case Special:WhatLinksHere/Iunu which shows there are also correct uses of the redirect. Instead you can pipe the uses which currently go to the wrong target. See Wikipedia:Piped link. If there is no right article but the subject appears notable and may get an article later then you can make a red link, for example [[Iunu (prince)|Iunu]] to produce Iunu. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter:Ok, how can I convert the redirect page into a disambiguation page? In other words, right now "Iunu" redirects to Helilopolis, but ideally there should be a disambiguation page that offers the choice between the prince and the city. Do I convert the redirect page into a disambiguation page somehow, or do I create a new disambiguation page and delete somehow the old redirect page? John Chamberlain (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, John Chamberlain. A disambiguation page is not usually recommended if there are only two topics: hatnotes are usually a better solution. (They can only be used when both articles exist, but frankly I would suggest that writing the article on the prince is far more valuable than worrying about redirects and disambiguation). A redirection page is just a page which has the special code #REDIRECT at the top, and it can be edited in the normal way. The trick is getting to it first: you can do that by letting Wikipedia take you to the redirected target, and then picking the link just under the title which says "Redirected from ... ". --ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_305&oldid=988971187"