Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 345

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 340

←

Archive 343

→

Beautiful Userpages? or Blank?

Greetings, members of the Teahouse and the hosts, I was wondering if, you turn your user page into a more sophisticated and complicated look, which means if you beautify your own page, does it really tell exactly who you are? I had this question since some of my friends suggest I ask it. Either way, I have seen other experienced editors that they make their user pages just plain blank, which is better actually, putting more information about you in your own user page, or just plain blank to define imagination, can you really identify the attitude of the person? and which would you prefer? ~Cry (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say not. My user page is not beautiful, but I am.

Fiddle Faddle 16:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so either. A beautiful layout might make me go "wow, they're good at design," but that's about it. If I was looking to hire a web designer, that might be important, but alas I am not. As for how much information a user has: I do think it's valuable for editors to discuss themselves. It establishes identity, lets others know what type of work you do on Wikipedia, etc. At the same time, I completely understand the reasons behind why someone might not disclose much information (if at all), such as privacy, avoiding harassment, or being young. So in the end: up to you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up this topic in the Teahouse, CryOCed, like Timtrent Fiddle, I am also quite beautiful! I have included personal information on my User page(s) for the purpose of working with editors. My editing was once questioned regarding my good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia and I was accused of being a 'male'(!!), Australian (!!!!), not being real, misrepresenting myself and a whole host of other not-very-nice-things. So...to help prevent such a waste of time in the future, I have revealed quite a bit about myself with no regrets. I know that I am probably not ever going to be the target of any real-life malcontents so I don't waste any time worrying about the possibility of my information being used against me. Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 22:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"This page was last modified" displayed an incorrect date

What does it mean when a page has the message "This page was last modified on X" but at the article's history the last edit shown is from a date different from X (I saw it giving a date before X for the last edit)? That someone made an invisible edit or is it just a bug? (it goes to normal if someone makes one edit then it usually shows the new date correctly) Lolaszvodikech (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Btw, it wasn't problem with browser cache. Lolaszvodikech (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lolaszvodikech. I am not a tech oriented editor, but my guess is that it may have something to do with your user preferences regarding time displays. Main Wikipedia time is Universal Time, similar to Greenwich Mean Time, but users can choose to display local time zones in their preferences. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for answering! But it's not this, because it showed correctly for other pages. :X Lolaszvodikech (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe someone else have experienced the same phenomenon I described? Lolaszvodikech (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lolaszvodikech: Which page was it and which dates did you see? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be not so rare. I took me only 90 clicks at "Random article" to find an example: An Leabhar Breac has the message "This page was last modified on 12 May 2015, at 13:02.", but at the history page the last edit is from 13:44, 11 April 2015‎. John Sure (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If the interface language is changed then it correctly says 11 April, for example with British English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Leabhar_Breac?uselang=en-gb. 11 April is confirmed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Leabhar_Breac?uselang=qqx which shows the name and parameters of interface messages instead of their text. I have sometimes seen the current time be shown as "last modified" when I made a null edit, but it reverted to the right time when the page was purged. Maybe An Leabhar Breac was null edited 12 May 2015 and cached without being purged or rerendered since then. Null edits are not recorded so I cannot say whether that actually happened here. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

User page

How do i create my own user page? I tried thrice but failed to create Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. If you click here or your user name in your post just above, you will be taken to a page to create your user page. Just put something in the box and save the page. You may want to read the following pages as well:

—DangerousJXD (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou User:DangerousJXD but my name is not appearing in blue font so that i click and it redirects to the page said by you Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you created the page by clicking the red link? —DangerousJXD (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Best discussion board

I am looking for a good quality discussion board.Tryagainv2 (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

About what? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably about trolling. Account blocked, this is User:Theadcarry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tryagainv2: Whenever you ask a question here, please could you give a subject, context or information so that when someone sees it, it is much simpler for them to help you and it would save the editor time (as in they wouldn't need to ask what help you need) TeaLover1996 (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

How to start a new page?

I would like to create a page about a person. How do I start?Wgan9 (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wgan9:, Hello there and welcome. To start a new page simply visit the article wizard by clicking here and follow the instructions. Thanks and happy editing. TeaLover1996 (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

request for additional information from an article

Forum:

This is my first attempt at asking a question relating to an article. The article is "Methyl Radical". There is a statement about its PRODUCTION. I would like to be able to ask the writer if there is additional detail that can be offered about the statement. But, first is that kind of question allowed? If so, how does one and where does one pose the question? Second, there would have been an initiaql writer than good chance one or more editors that could have changed the statement so to whom would such a question be addressed? A responder for Wikipedia mentioned raising the question in the "Teahouse" so here's my question.

Further, when at the article. "Methyl Radical" I see there is a "Talk" tab and that reading seems to be poster identities followed by "(talk)" which may be a discussion summary page, but if any of this is relevant, does one register for a "(talk)" page, is it assigned if someone registers? and where would it be stored?

Any comments or directions or suggestions on how to proceed would be appreciated

On other websites, my ID frequently is "fairweather" 98.198.62.21 (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 98.198.62.21. Creating a Wikipedia account greatly facilitates communication among editors, so I recommend that you consider that. There is a talk page for every registered editor and for every IP editor such as you, as well. My talk page, for example, can be accessed by clicking "Let's discuss it" in my signature. Every article also has an associated talk page, and that is the best place to discuss the content of that article. But often the talk page on more obscure topics are inactive. Every article and every talk page also has a history page, which shows every edit to the page going almost all the way back to when Wikipedia started, nearly 15 years ago. So you could figure out who added the content in question, but there is no guarantee that the editor who added the content is still an active editor. Since they are volunteers, editors come and go all the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The talk page for Methyl radical has been inactive for nearly two years, but the most active editor on that article seems to be Plasmic Physics. I recommend that you address your question to that esteemed editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Wanted to thank Cullen328 for his initial comments, but cannot see how that is done within the depths of Wikipedia. In other forums I belong to, one just clicks on "Reply" or "Post" and it gets done. If one clicks (in green) Cullen328, it goes to to a User / Profile Pager for Cullen, but no way to communicate. If you go to the (maybe a title in blue), seems in his case to go to a hisotry page of past (Talk), still no way to communicate. Wikipedia must set a record in the detail in this website. I'm in detail "OVERLOAD" Can't there be a more straightforward way to use the information in Wikipedia?

Wanted to do the same thing for the User? / Writer? / Editor "Plasmic Physics" mentioned by Cullen328 which was the reason for trying to ask a question of the article "Methyl Radical" Chem4EngrChem4Engr (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Chem4Engr. There is a lot to learn in Wikipedia, as you are finding. Stick with it! Most user's signatures contain two links, the first to their user page and the second to their user talk page. So for Cullen328, picking that name takes you to his user page, and picking "Let's discuss it" takes you to his uesr talk page. (For reasons I cannot fathom, users are allowed to have only one of these links in their signature. In my view, doing so is obstructive behaviour, but the guideline explicitly allows it. In that case, if they have only their user page linked, you can go to that and then pick "Talk" at the top).

If you look at the history of the 'Methyl radical' article (which you can also get to by picking "History" from the top of the article), you'll see that each editor's name is a link (to their user page), and is followed by a "(talk)" link (to their user talk page). In particular, there is one such link to User Talk:Plasmic Physics --ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Chem4Engr, there is one correction that needs to be made in the above information, and this is why it is so important that you registered. Cullen328 is one of the most helpful people here at The Teahouse and he gives some of the best answers. But he left one detail out of his response (he almost never makes a mistake) in this case when he said, "There is a talk page for ... every IP editor such as you, as well." Actually, there is a talk page for every IP address, and if yours changes, that makes it harder to communicate with you. It could also mean more than one person is getting messages at the talk page of your IP address.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, Vchimpanzee, and I oversimplified things a bit. An IP talk page is for an IP address, not for a specific editor. Some people do edit through static IP addresses, and carry on talk page conversations that way. But many IP addresses change frequently, and that makes a conversation difficult. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Chem4Engr: I think the other answers here may have missed part of your question too. When you visit a talk page, take Cullen's for example, in the top right inbetween the history link and the edit link is a "new section" link. You write your message there and save it, and it will appear on his talk page (think like a public discussion page for that particular user or page). If you have any more questions, come back here and ask! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 06:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You can see what a helpful, friendly place the Teahouse is! I might add that "IP" means "Internet Protocol," which is an identifying number assigned to your computer. That means that your computer is visible on Wikipedia, but not your name. And you might not want to get your IP number out in front of the world. That's another good reason for registering. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It is very old UI for adding comment to discussion. Behamooz (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

asking and reading older questionsn and answers is hard

Wikipedia is a great site but keeping every thing in wiki pages is annoying. for example this section is very similar to forums (not wiki) but asking and reading older questions and answers is too odd and complex. is there any forums for asking questions?Behamooz (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The wiki software is meant for writing articles; holding discussions isn't really its intended purpose. An upgrade is in the works but isn't implemented yet. I don't think there's currently an official forum for Wikipedia-related questions. You can, however, use the search bar in the archive box at the top right to see if an issue has come up before; in my experience that works quite well. Huon (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Spelling problem

Toilet humour has the title spelt using the UK spelling but then uses the US spelling throughout. This isn't the beginning of a bad joke. What should be done about this and similar problems? Thanks, Rubbish computer 15:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Try to figure out what the original English version was in the article and revise the article accordingly. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you I will try this. Rubbish computer 15:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: The original version was in British English, so I've going to be WP:BOLD and put it back to British English. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Appears I edit conflicted with you doing it. Nice spot though. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

And only Wikipedia could have the mid-Atlantic off-color humour as a redirect - though the US is on the left and the UK on the right (now changed to colour) - Arjayay (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Common terminology?

How can I determine a word which must not be linked because it is very common? Like if popularity graph available on Google? The case is organism which I feel, is very common, and which is first introduced in 3rd grade!
117.226.236.238 (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no bright-line rule. According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Overlinking, "everyday words understood by most readers in context" should not be linked. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the question. How to determine if a word is commonly known or not? Its usage, or popularity, or what thing would say that a word, like here, it was case of organism will come under commonly recognized word or not?
117.233.77.83 (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

That is a matter for editorial judgment, which means that intelligent human beings (you and me) decide whether or not to wikilink various terms within articles. Place yourself in the shoes of an intelligent, precocious 13 year old. Would such a person benefit from a link to another article, or would they fully understand the term in context? Linking to food, water, air, fire, love, hate, the colors red and blue, and the Earth and Sun are unlikely to be useful. And so on. Use your good judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The {{Overlinked}} template is available for articles with excessive wikilinks. It places the article into Category:Articles with too many wikilinks. JoeHebda (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse like places

I'm just curious. Are there places similar to teahouse on wikipedia?Paleocemoski (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Paleocemoski. The Help desk is another place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. The Reference desk is a place to ask more general questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

So what's the difference between those three. Paleocemoski (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The Teahouse is intended to be a friendly place especially for new editors learning how to edit Wikipedia. The Help Desk is a more businesslike place for all editors with questions about editing the encyclopedia. The Reference Desk is for questions about anything under the sun, but they do not give medical or legal advice. I hope that helps, Paleocemoski. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Greetings @Paleocemoski:, In addition to Cullen328's excellent answer, there is a Wikipedia Tip-of-the-Day at Wikipedia:Tip of the day/August 25 about the kinds of help available. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

How long does it take to undelete a draft article?

Hi,I made a request to undelete a draft article. I got an email message today that it will be shortly deleted and when I got to Wikipedia it was already deleted. I made a request to undelete it. How long does the un-deletion process take and will I get an email notification when it is done? Please advise. Thanks Ymsabri (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ymsabri, welcome to the Teahouse. I found your request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Draft:Mahmoud Sabri. Requests are usually answered within a day, often hours. Watch that page for replies. You did not log in when you made the request so they don't know who you are, but you probably wouldn't be notified anyway. However, I suggest you make a post there while logged in so they can see the request is from the author of the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, Thank you for your swift reply. YMSabri

109.148.237.161 (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

List articles

I have just finished my first list articles, List of tallest buildings and structures in Ipswich, and wondered if there is anything else I need to do. I know a list is similar to an article, that why I'm asking. Could someone check if my list is okay. thank Wrightie99 (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome. It looks great to me. However if your looking to improve on it, you can create additional articles for each individual building or improve on the current ones. Your article has already been patrolled so your good to go. The list in an essence is still an article because your still putting information into the encyclopedia. Have a great day LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 03:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Cans

What is a "canned edit summary"? —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: Basically, canned has a meaning similar to that of boilerplate, referring to a standardized block of text that can be used repeatedly (and sometimes less than appropriately in individual instances). I have a feeling that you're referring specifically to the filter tags that can be seen here. Note that all those edit summaries are standardized things like "Added link" and "Fixed typo"—such summaries are common and may be valid, but they're also often used to disguise vandalism, which is why the edits may need to be checked by someone. Deor (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: "canned edit summary" refers specifically to a few canned responses in the official Wikipedia App: "Fixed typo", "Fixed grammar", "Added links", "Added content". The user can select them without typing. PrimeHunter (talk)

Account Hackers

Apparently, this user, was known as AHLM13, was considered a hacker, and is threatening to hack User:Mar4d and has little attention. Was hackers an often problem in the past? Was many users have been hacked before? I notice that there is little reports about this problem, and the majority of the influence, the most used: "Religions, cultures, and also humiliation or just plain prank". I am currently thinking of an idea that will let new users decide if they or not follow the rules. If they create a profile, before editing, they will be redirected into the "rules" page so that they can have the time to read, and also be invited by The Wikipedia Adventure immediately, if they don't know how to edit after their pages have been created. I am actually gonna add this at the Wishing Well, but the real main question here is, does Hackers really give off huge problems here in Wikipedia? CryOCed (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, sit down and rest for a bit. We are happy to have you here. I think you are talking about what we call WP:Vandalism. Check out that page and then get back to us. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, given the discussions I've just looked at, you're misinterpreting what happened here, which I'll sum up (without using any user names) as: One user used Twinkle to revert many edits they did not like, using an edit summary calling these edits vandalism, or naming the users as vandals. A bunch of users told the other to stop doing that. Some observed that these edits appeared out of character for the user, and postulated that maybe their home computer was hacked or they failed to log off a public one and someone then used their account to make these inadvisable edits. However, a later discussion revealed that the original user was making the edits – was using the word "vandal" or "vandalism" in their Twinkle-assisted reverts for any edit they did not like, and a discussion ensued that this must not be done, and there was eventually agreement by the user to stop doing that. I saw no threat of the user to hack the account of anyone. There have been a few major instances in the past of users whose home computer's were hacked, or who had their passwords hacked either through the their home computer (i.e., via a keylogger) or directly in our interface) because they has a weak password), and then a third person went on a rampage using their Wikipedia account. This happened to an admin a few years back. However, given the number of users we have, it's a true rarity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Fuhghettaboutit I see, but this kind of user is actually making more and more sockpuppets to explain his own opinion that regards religions. Actually, these kind of users aren't so rare outside Wikipedia, and this user has bypassed all the warnings whatsoever. I am actually curious about that currently, but can we even prevent these kind of users? Especially, they're making new profiles repeatedly. Here's the link by the way. User_talk:Mar4d#My_account_is_hacked. CryOCed (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I still see only a user claiming they were hacked and that got them blocked, nothing in that conversation about a threat by the user to hack Mar4d. Did I miss it? Unfortunately, yes, we can and do end up playing whack-a-mole with persistent sock puppeteer vandals who are sophisticated in using proxies and IP hopping and setting up sleeper accounts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

People claim to have gotten hacked, or to be hackers but in reality it is very rare. It's like the "My brother did it" excuse, often times a user just decides to go vandalising and then pretends it wasn't them, often times using multiple accounts at the same time. I personally wouldn't be concerned about it, just choose a choice password and you'll be fine. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Google shows someone will hack upto 10 wiki accounts for $5 USD ... probably due to weak passwords people use. The same group offers a 1,000 reddit votes or 10 wikipedia affirmations (whatever that is) for $2 USD. Generally speaking, hacking threats are idle - but it really depends on how much you piss someone off - if you're not a donkey (live the wikipedia codes), you have nothing to worry about. -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the inactivity, my laptop just got struck by viruses, and I suppose I can react at that statement of yours User:IamM1rv, I didn't actually know that they're hacking for money, geesh, I didn't really expect on how far will users go down than just 5$... well, thanks for telling me. I just hope that this topic (hackers) will not be a threat to Wikipedia itself. CryOCed (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

What is "Live edits" and "deleted edits"?

Xtools shows that my total edits are 3659(3634 Live edits + 25 Deleted edits). What does it means? Does 25 is a number of edits that I have deleted? Human3015 Say Hey!! • 08:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Human3015. Welcome back to the Teahouse. A deleted edit is an edit made to a page that was later deleted. So if you make 6 edits to a page and then that page later gets deleted, you will have 6 deleted edits. Live edits are all the other edits that aren't deleted edits. It isn't important so don't worry about it. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that deleted edits are only visible to administrators and not listed at Special:Contributions. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Would like someone to do it for me

Hi, I have, on a pdf, a brief description of my page, and below, a few short paragraphs about a drama coach who died in 1962, named Barney Brown (Dustin Hoffman studied with him at the Pasadena Playhouse, for one). I also have two references for my article, and three photos, 492kb for all in tif format.

Could I send these to someone to put on the Wikipedia for me? In the past I tried to do something like this and ended up getting a helper to do for me--because of all those reasons.Kamitra1 (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kamitra1: Hi and welcome to the Teahouse, yes I suppose you could get a user to do it for you but first I would suggest trying to do it yourself, if not then there may be users who are willing to help you on this matter. Thanks and happy editing TeaLover1996 (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You might find somebody willing to help at WP:WikiProject Theatre. The references are the important bit: the more you can find, the more attractive the project might be for somebody to take up. If you took the pictures yourself, you probably own the copyright and can use them; if you didn't you may not be able to use them. --ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

feedback on my draft?

I created my first article, the topic is the company Field Nation. I believe the article is justified because of the level of success they have achieved, and similar companies such as WorkMarket and Elance have Wikipedia articles. I am the wife of Field Nation's CTO, however tried to keep it as unbiased as possible so I hope this is not a conflict of interest. I would love any feedback before I attempt to publish this--I have created it in my sandbox.Thanks so much for your help.CarrieMarie21 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@CarrieMarie21: Since you have a conflict of interest please add {{subst:submit}} to the head of your draft and pass it through the reviewing system. Fiddle Faddle 21:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, CarrieMarie21. I'm afraid that neither the "level of success" nor the presence of other companies is of any consequence for Wikipedia. The sole relevant criterion is whether there is substantial writing about the company by people unconnected with it, published in reliable sources; because if there are no such sources, there is literally nothing which can be written about it in a Wikipedia article. On a quick look at your sandbox, it appears there are plenty of references; however it looks to me as if most of these are press releases and interviews, which means that they are not independent writing about the company. (I admit that this was a very quick look, so I may have missed some independent pieces). --ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks ColinFine. I am using press releases, but there are significant reliable sources as well such as Inc. Magazine and the Star Tribune of Minneapolis. Thanks for the feedback! As you can probably tell I have a lot to learn. 15:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarrieMarie21 (talk • contribs) -CarrieMarie21

Redirect categorising

As bots can categorise redirects more specifically than me should I leave them uncategorised? Rubbish computer 16:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen a bot adding (new, relevant) categories to any article or redirect. I don't believe such bots exist. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

But we do have a guideline about this: Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

User:(Username)/(Subject)

What's the difference between a sandbox and this User:(Username)/(Subject). And can it be created like a normal page? Paleocemoski (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no practical difference, Paleocemoski. "Sandbox" is just Wikipedia jargon for a place to experiment with wikicode and draft new encyclopedia content. Yes, such userpages can be created the same way as other pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Just make sure you spell your username correctly, but the "sandbox" title can be anything, also you can have subpages of subpages in your userspace, like User:Paleocemoski/Notes/And stuff. (My own example: User:Jeraphine Gryphon/sandbox/fiction.) And if you lose track of your subpages then you can always find them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Paleocemoski&namespace=2

— Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

How to prove notability?

I have read the Wikipedia paragraphs on "notability," but I continue to be confused. In writing my first post for the site, that of artist Charles Mingus III, I footnoted a list of his many exhibitions and professional qualifications. What is needed here, I gather, is the imprimatur of other artists or critics. Am I right about that? Cluk-2 (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

What you need are citations to reliable, secondary sources that are entirely unconnected to the topic, so not his blog, website, Facebook, LinkedIn, other sources of his own writing or those of people connected to him, but third party sources writing about him – showing that the world has taken note of him. For example, books published by major publishing houses, newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed scholarly journals and websites that meet the same requirements as reputable print-based sources. Some of the sources here might be of use for this. However, I have deleted the draft article as a copyright violation. It can be created again, but must not copy and paste content as it did. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Cluk-2, Welcome to the Teahouse! Please, have a seat, I know Wikipedia's notability and verifiability rules might be confusing in such ways, but you must know why and understand. Notability has guidelines.

Significant coverage is the addressing of the topic in such great detail, no need to research the original terms. Reliable sources are need for editors with their own integrity to allow them for the evaluation of notability, per each the reliable source guideline. Sources are the secondary sources, which provides great evidence of the main source. Generally, multiple sources are needed. There is no limit of what you can give sources for the reliable source you want to give evidence of. See WP:Notability. Just like User:Fuhghettaboutit had said, you need citations that are most reliable. CryOCed (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A useful simplification of notability is here. Esquivalience ^t 17:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

How to improve a start-class article

Hello, all! My first article was created a few months ago and I have finally passed the stage of pure awe and have entered the improvement stages. The article, Cambridge Political Equality Association, is a start-class article. I've read into the criteria for each article grade and what I'm so far understanding is that to improve a start-class article, one might need to fix or improve citations, grammar or writing style, and content. I previously had some technical citation issues, which have since been repaired, but I'm looking for more suggestions for how to improve this article, as it's often difficult to edit/proofread one's own writing. Any ideas? -- Kristinnlizz (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kristinnlizz. What mainly separates the grades from each other is the comprehensiveness of the article, so expand the article if you can. However, in your article, I don't think there is really too much more to talk about, so I have reviewed the article again and set it to C-class.

I don't have specific suggestions (another host may have some), however a good way to improve the quality of any article is to improve the writing, mainly by removing redundancies and copyediting. Tony1 has some very good writing guides and exercises, including User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing, among others: take some time to read them, and apply those ideas, and your article will be much easier to read and be popular with the grammarphiles. Esquivalience ^t 00:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kristinnlizz. Thank you for helping us improve our coverage of the U.S. women's suffrage movement. I did a little bit of copy editing, including wikilinking to the governor you mentioned. Here are my observations: It is surprising to me that an article about a group based in Cambridge mentions neither Harvard nor MIT. According to our Manual of style, we do not attach honorifics like "Mrs." or "Dr," to people's names. Instead, when appropriate, we note that a person was a physician or someone's spouse. I am smart enough to guess why the group was dissolved in 1920, but the article should state it explicitly. I would like to know what specific stands the group took regarding tactical, strategic and ideological issues within the women's suffrage movement. What, specifically, did this group accomplish? Lists of otherwise non-notable people do not improve an article. Who were these people and why should they be mentioned in an encyclopedia article? I hope my questions and comments are helpful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Pandora

I found an artist I like on Pandora called Xavier Rudd. His wiki page is extremely short. Pandora has a long bio at http://www.pandora.com/xavier-rudd?bio Is this a citable source?Yarkko (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Another question(sorry). Is this a RELIABLE source?Yarkko (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently this website is only available in US, Australia and New Zealand, so I cannot view it. However, articles are generally better if they come from a variety of reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Yarkko. Like Joseph2302, I can't look at the site; but the fact that not everybody can see it does not necessarily rule it out as acceptable. It may be user-generated, and so unreliable; it may have editorial control and be reliable, but the biography may come straight from the artist, in which case it will not be an independent source. Or it may be both reliable and independent. The place to ask about it is the reliable sources noticeboard, being specific about the part of the site you are asking about and what you want to use it for in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Refname

Despite using WP:Refname I cannot apply this to cite reference 2 twice in User:Rubbish computer/Composed salad without not using the accessdate, etc. The Help:Footnotes section does not explain this. Rubbish computer 14:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Rubbish computer. If you want to use the second one again (which is what I think you mean), you need to change

<ref>

to

<ref name=cookthink>

(or whatever name you choose). Then when you want to use the same reference again you put

<ref name=cookthink/>

(don't forget the / !) as the whole of the citation.

Does this help? If not, you'll have to explain your problem in more detail --ColinFine (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That is what I was trying to do and I have now done this successfully. Rubbish computer 15:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Style guide needed.

I'm excited to be a part of Wikipedia. Is there a style guide for punctuation, etc? I don't know whether, in a quote, to put the punctuation within the quotation marks or not. The traditional American way was inside, but it seems that Wikipedia uses the British way, outside. Also, when using numbers, Wikipedia seems to use the numeral sometimes and the word sometimes, as in "The 3rd president of the United States" or "The third president of the United States." I'm sure I'll need to check a style guide for many other questions as they come up. Thanks! N. Bolkonsky (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, N. Bolkonsky. Welcome to the Teahouse. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style will have all you need to know but to answer it myself briefly: it depends. I'll tell you this though: never put a comma at the end of a quote. More information on that can be found here. —DangerousJXD (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

That's correct. Wikipedia requires British style in all cases, even articles that are otherwise written in other varieties of English. This is one of the most frequently challenged rules in the MoS, but it is the rule. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Foundation Board of Trustees

Dear Wikipedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Joseph 2302 & Positive Contributors

RE: My concerns (The Minimization of the Contributions of Black Britons & Working Class) please kindly take the time do some research of this matter. Yes, it is sensitive subject but Wikipedia has a moral responsibility to educate and inform it's readers in a correct manner of which it is worthy. All contributions must be truthful, fair and correct.

Yours sincerely,

TouchingHeaven247. TouchingHeaven247 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I find this offensive, since it implies that I'm not a positive contributor, as you did with the statement "Wikipedia ought to know that racism and class discrimination is highly prevalent among the UK/and some European contributors" which is offensive to British and European contributors (of which I am one). I agree that the quality of Wikipedia articles shouldn't be based on race, but the way you're arguing this is not in good faith. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, User:TouchingHeaven247. I see your concern about the minimization of the edits that the black Britons has, please take this into consideration. Minimized contributions from that of black people aren't entirely suspicious for racism, the fact that it has small edits compared to people that are white, is simply lacking of on examination and information. Other than that, you cannot justify that if some article with minimized contributions and their own working classes with the reason that they are black is not racist. You must know why sometimes, some articles have that "stub" template on them. It's not because contributors dislike how britons are black, it's because they do not know what to do. Often times, they skip the article because they're not too attached to it, or they don't have time to research. But I clearly see your point, Wikipedia at least tries to give considerable ruling, regarding this issue. CryOceD (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TouchingHeaven247. Please be aware that the Wikimedia Foundation, its Board of Trustees, and its paid employees do not create nor shape the content of English Wikipedia. That is entirely up to volunteer editors like you and me. I agree that Wikipedia has systemic biases. There is only one solution. That is for volunteers, such as you, who see shortcomings of our coverage of certain topic areas, to research, expand existing articles, and write new articles, in compliance with our policies and guidelines. There is no other solution to the problem, other than doing the kind of volunteer work that created this free encyclopedia. Please pitch in and help. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I need help with an article, I don't know how to edit tables

Hi, So I was on the Hilary Duff concert tour page and I noticed someone had moved a concert date incorrectly in the table for Most Wanted Tour. They have the September 12,2004 date in Calgary as cancelled. However, I was there and I know this isn't correct. I can't for the life of me remember how to format the table so I can insert it after the Vancouver date.

WestJet (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello WestJet! Welcome to the Teahouse! This is the tutorial you were looking for >> Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables, other than that, to insert a table, press the box above, the right side of Insert. I hope I have helped you! CryOceD (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The table itself exists, but I don't know how to add it in. Every time I tried to make a table in the past, adding a thing here or there would cause the table to implode on itself. --WestJet (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello WestJet

Try to use edit tab instead of edit source

I found it more easy when editing tables.

Best wishes

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 09:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

uploading cover art for a CD single

Spent ages some time ago uploading the cover of a CD that was lacking ('shameless' by Billy Joel, the page only shows the cover version by Garth Brooks!) only to see that is has now been deleted. Just spent more time reading and trying to redo it with choosing the right parameters but it is frankly too complicated Joel52st (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joel52st
You were notified of its impending deletion on 4 December 2014, and it was deleted on 12 December 2014. As explained on your talk page it was deleted because it was not being used.
I see that User:Exciter106 deleted the picture from the Shameless (song) article on 14 November, in this edit but did not explain why. You could ask him/her, but they have not edited in the last 10 weeks so may well not reply. - Arjayay (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability

I created an article about a professional program which is a co-presentation between the Banff Centre (an 80 year old institution) and the Citadel Theatre (a 50 year old institution), yet it was found to be "not notable". The Program is an 8-year old professional training institution which has over 120 celebrated alumni, all of whom are highly regarded in their profession in Canada - yet while this is not notable, there are entries for 7th round NHL draft picks who never played a professional game. Please explain "notability". Wilfdirk (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wilfdirk. Before I discuss notability, I want to tell you about an important concept in the minds of experienced Wikipedia editors, called other stuff exists. There is a well-documented tendency on the part of some new editors to defend their new article on the basis that even worse articles exist on this encyclopedia, which has nearly five million articles. Experienced editors respond that this other stuff should either be improved or deleted, but we just haven't gotten around to it yet. We constantly work to delete poor quality articles, both old and new, in large numbers every single day, and are well aware that we have many such articles. But that is not an excuse to create more non-compliant articles.

I do not believe that, in general, we should have articles about professional athletic draft picks who have not yet played a pro game. But a small percentage of these people will have achieved notability through their college or amateur play.

Notability has a special meaning on Wikipedia. Briefly, it means that the article topic has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. We demonstrate that notability by citing those sources as references within the article. That is closely connected with another core content policy, namely verifiability. Every substantive claim in an article should be backed up by a reference.

I am not judging whether or not the program you mentioned is notable, because I haven't looked into it. But I will say that such a program does not inherit notability from the sponsoring institutions, nor from the accomplishments of its alumni. It comes from significant coverage in reliable independent sources of the program itself, and nothing else matters here on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

To add to what Cullen328 has said, Wilfdirk: in some ways, "notability" is an unfortunate choice of word, because of all the associations the word has in normal speech (though it's difficult to think of another word that would fit). "Notable" in Wikipedialand does not mean any of "important", "famous", "influential", "popular", "valuable" or "worthy". In fact, it has nothing to do with any of these, except incidentally. It means only that several people unconnected with the subject have decided to write and publish substantial material about the subject. That's it. And the reason, as Cullen says, is that, since almost all of an article should be drawn from published sources independent of the subject, if the subject fails the test for notability, there is almost nothing that could be put in an article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Declined Article

Hi Sami, My article Dr Surendra ajnat has been declined. The reason given to me is "Not verified by reliable sources". Could you help me to improve my article? Kind Regards Dr Surendra Ajnat (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't write about yourself on Wikipedia. Apart from the complete lack of sources, your submission is also woefully self-aggrandising, and would never be accepted as a Wikipedia article. It is clear that you are not able to write about yourself in the neutral manner required here, and I would strongly recommend that you abandon the attempt and consider alternative outlets instead. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

article up for deletion-no reason

Someone siad this article is an unimportanrt aprtmrnt building and said it will be deleted. I added more info and removed the tag with reasoning. They then added the tag back and wont tell me what needs improving. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Francis_Court Wrightie99 (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wrightie99, Welcome to the Teahouse! You're looking for this page, please read the guidelines, also the reasons for deletion. If the page has something that violates the deletion policy, then, if you can, please make changes. SEE WP:Deletion policy

CryOceD (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I see a small problem, how can I move an article into a draft space. This is to work on it. I feel that the article is not notable enough and I have some refs to help. thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, you added links through the page that doesn't exist. You doubled the same reference "emporis, emporis". That is not allowed. Yes, you need more sources, of where did you get the info. Apparently DGG claims that "A 16 story apartment building in the UK is not notable; it' s not even the tallest one in this particular city,. The only 3rd party sources are about a non-fatal fire that took place there--that's local news, and was covered by the local papers". CryOceD (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Could I move it to a draft space to work on it. If its still not notable I will understand if it gets deleted. The only reason I created this article is beacuse I was told to create an article for every building on this list article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_Ipswich Wrightie99 (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You're apparently looking for incubation. Incubator is the place where you place your article that does not meet the Wikipedia's guidelines, I haven't tried incubating yet, you can ask an administrator for it. CryOceD (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The incubator was closed down in January 2014 - and was superseded by drafts. The article is going through the articles for deletion process, which takes at least 7 days from the nomination, which was 23:39, 25 May 2015 so you have nearly a week to improve the article, without worrying about moving it. - Arjayay (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

CryOCed: I can see that you are trying to be helpful, but I'm afraid you're giving wrong information. I suggest you sit back and watch the Teahouse for a bit, and get more experience, before jumping in with suggestions. --ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Wrightie99. The article St Francis Court is being proposed for deletion not because it is "unimportant" but because it does not appear to be "notable". These sound like the same, but "notable" has a special meaning in Wikipedialand. It is not about importance - it is about whether there is significant writing about it in reliable sources - and that is what the article does not demonstrate. If you could find an article about it in a national newspaper, or a book from a major publisher, that would be different. But Wikipedia does not have articles on everything, and in particular it does not have articles on things that nobody has written significantly about, because there is nothing that could go in the article (every single thing in an article should be referenced to a reliable published source).

You certainly could move it to a draft space to work on it - I would move it to Draft:St Francis Court myself, but I am not certain how that would interact with the deletion process. I think if you posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Francis Court asking for it to be moved, somebody would probably do so for you - though from what DGG says there, it seems unlikely you will find suitable sources.

I haven't looked at List of tallest buildings and structures in Ipswich, but if somebody indeed told you to create an article for each building, then I think they need to look at WP:Notability themselves.

And despite what CryOCed told you:

Two citations to the same reference are certainly allowed, though it's neater to use WP:NAMEDREFS to combine them
The incubator is long dead. articles for creation is the current system (which uses the Draft: namespace, but an article can indeed be moved into Draft: space).

Good luck. --ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I was reading the wrong article, why wouldn't they remove the incubator page? CryOceD (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

CryOCed, the page says at the top "No articles should be added to the Incubator. Consider WP:DRAFTS instead" and "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.". Articles are not deleted except according to the deletion policy --ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the information. I have found most of the info through the Ipswich Society-a local organisation that protects architecture however, I was informed I can not use this as a reference so I found the relevant information in the local newspaper and emporis. Regarding st Francis Court the building itself, it was part of a catastrophic development disaster in the 1960's and 1970's. I have found more sources for development not just the building. The development has 3 buildings that survived, the rest were destroyed. So I propose I create an article for the GreyFriars Development (the name of it) and have a section talking about this building. Would this be accepted? sorry for the continued questions, thanks again Wrightie99 (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Wrightie99. It is possible that the Ipswich Society's publications would be usable as a reference: if they appear to have somebody exercising editorial control and checking facts, but not if their site is effectively a blog which anybody can just post on. (And you couldn't use anything they haven't published). The reliable sources noticeboard would be the place to ask about that.

From your description it sounds as if the Greyfriars development might be a suitable topic for an article: I suggest you work through the article wizard, and when you think it's ready, submit it for review. --ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wrightie99: Whatever approach you take, the deletion discussion will roll on inexorably. It is important that you participate in it. Fiddle Faddle 13:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In that case I will start work on an article about Greyfriars Development. Shall I delete the St Francis Court article or state on the talk page that I'm starting a new article which will incorporate some of the information from the article? Wrightie99 (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, i think moving it to draft space is a good solution. There are several other similar articles by the same editor I whave not yet nominated, for which i would suggest doing the same. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

How long will this stay on a page?

This article does not cite any references or sources.

It's been there since January and I've cited everything on the page.

Pinchdatail (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pinchdatail: The message is there to prompt folk like you to act. If you feel your actions have met the need then please remove the message as part of your work. We work on the honour system. Fiddle Faddle 21:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

But if you do remove the template please explain in your edit summary why you are removing it.--ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

How to remove inline citations and

My article is still under review but I've been referred, again, to WP:CITE, WP:IRS, WP:REFB and WP:RS, all of which I've read and attempted to understand. The article was declined initially, and I went back and exhaustively footnoted/referenced and sourced all of the information in it.

Below are the comments that persist. I really need some help with how to improve the article and fix these remaining issues. Can you help?

Comment: Seems notable, mainly due to coverage in NYT, etc. Unreferenced information must be removed, and please see WP:IRS and WP:RS for indications on what Wikipedia considers good sources, and adhere to that. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I see you are adding references. Please do read WP:REFB and WP:CITE before you go much further Fiddle Faddle 16:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS

All inline links must be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See Wikipedia:External links Fiddle Faddle 14:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Annmarieholcomb (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to include the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_M._Wolf Annmarieholcomb (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Annmarieholcomb: The comments remain as review history, rather than persisting. Reviewers use them to check what has been said before and that you have taken them on board. They are also used when a reviewer disagrees with another. Since yu have resubmitted your draft please do two things:

trust the review process
Continue to make improvements while awaiting a review.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle Faddle 18:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)