Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 361

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 355←Archive 359Archive 360Archive 361Archive 362Archive 363→Archive 365

Trying to find the articles in need of revision page.

Hello everyone, could someone help me find the page in Wikipedia that demonstrates the pages that are in need of corrections please? I came across it a while ago but I can't seem to find it anymore. Thank you!CoolInu43 (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@CoolInu43: hello and welcome to the Teahouse! There are lots of pages on Wikipedia that list all sorts of possible improvements that can be made to articles. "Getting Started" was my first thought. New editors are given some automatic suggestions of articles which can be copyedited or need links adding to them. Oddly, the extension is no longer available to users who have made a certain amount of edits... at least, I think that's what happens from experience. I remember finding the suggestions very useful, but one day I was just no longer to access the page.
If you want to do some more copyediting, then Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit might be a good place to start: pick a month and then choose some articles that sound interesting. If you want to add more links to articles, Category:Articles with too few wikilinks is a good place to look.
If you're referring to something else, WP:BACKLOG is another page which lists all kinds of problems with articles that you might be able to help with. I'm sure other editors will be able to think of all kinds of other pages that you might find helpful. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@CoolInu43: Just to add slightly to Bilorv's advice above, if you want to see those "getting started" suggestions again, just add to the end of the existing url of any (non-special namespace) Wikipedia page (such as this one) this code and hit enter/return: ?gettingStartedReturn=true. If you're in 'edit mode', it's slightly more complicated – you then have to replace &action=edit with said code. By the way, the Wikipedia:Community portal provides an organized list of places where you can help out. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help with this. I will get right on to those places and again thank you for your help. I really appreciate it! CoolInu43 (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I will add a slightly different option -- SuggestBot. The bot sends suggestions to a user's talk page, with those suggestions related to the user's interests (based on his or her activity on Wikipedia pages). The user page linked above offers two options for receiving suggestions -- on demand or at regular intervals. Here (from my talk page) is an example of one message from SuggestBot: Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot.173.217.226.50 (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Photo cropping

How do I request photos be cropped? I'd love to use these photos but matting white space is problematic. Examples:

Thanks. NotAnOmbudsman (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey NotAnOmbudsman.
  1. Navigate to the pictures at the Commons (i.e. make sure you're not looking at the mirroring of the images here, which has tripped up many an editor);
  2. Click edit at the top of the page;
  3. Add this code there: {{Remove border}};
  4. Save the page and you're done.
Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm... Cropping is only allowed in very limited circumstances according to the instructions. It says: "If it is desirable to have a cropped version for specific uses, this should be uploaded as a separate file, and linked back to the original. This can be requested by using {{extract image}} instead." Going to give it a try.. :) Thanks. NotAnOmbudsman (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I just use https://tools.wmflabs.org/croptool/ and, yes, save the cropped version as a different file (you have the option to do this). See the instructions at commons:Commons:CropTool. Thincat (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, NotAnOmbudsman. You should not crop an original image on Wikimedia Commons. But it is perfectly OK and a good thing to download an image, crop it, and then upload it as a new derivative image. Of course, you should link to the original image. For an example, take a look at George Meany, currently waiting for Good article review. There is a photo of Meany meeting with Richard Nixon. The original photo included many other people. I cropped it to show just the two of them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Repairing Cite errors

Hi Teahouse Hosts, I have been busy fixing reference errors recently and noticed This article has a cite error because in a previous edit Here a block of text was deleted. This resulted in a reference being declared but no longer used. Should the editor have removed the declared reference in addition to the text? This is just one example of a number of other articles with similar cite errors so it would be handy to know the correct solution.CV9933 (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, CV9933, and welcome to the Teahouse. I commented out the unused reference, using an HTML comment (like this <!-- Comment Here -->) in this edit. I then posted a note about the matter on the article talk page. If, however, I were sure that the reference was of no future value to the article, i would simply have deleted the ref. I hope that helps. DES (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, DES that was the simple solution that I was looking for.CV9933 (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

How to make a logo smaller

I do not know how to make the logo on Cisco Eos smaller as it is far too big. Thanks, Rubbish computer 10:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: Thanks. Rubbish computer 10:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

More Citations Needed?

As a new user & as a way of increasing my wiki skills I took to editing & improving a particular page which was described as needing more citations. The page now has 40-plus citations (originally just 2). Who decides when to remove the banner indicating more citations needed? Ian B Evans (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Picture upload

When I can upload pictures in Wikipedia, there is an option for "Wikimedia commons". What's the difference? Aero Slicers 13:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Aero Slicers, and welcome to the Teahouse. Images (and other files) uploaded to Comons may be used by any of the many Wikimedia Foundation projects, including the Wikipedia versions in many different languages, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, and others. Images uploaded to the english-language (en) Wikipedia can only be used here unless someone downloads and re-uploads them. Commons only accepts freely licensed or public domain content; en Wikipedia accepts content under a claim of Fair Use provided that all of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria are complied with. If you are uploading free content (such as pictures you took yourself and are releasing under a free license) please upload to Commens, if you would, to make the work available as widely as possible. DES (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing article for NPOV

Hi, while editing an article (of an individual) for removing the promotional content & tone. What to do if he/she is doing promotion or quoting something inspirational about them etc during an interview, which gets published in a reliable source ? Should these be left as such in the article (if backed by reliable source) or to be modified or removed ? Thanks! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Vivek.bekhabar, that becomes a judgement call. Statements by the subject in an interview, even if published in a reliable source, are considered primary sources. They can be included, but should not be the main source of content. As per WP:UNDUE undue weight should not be given to any one point of view. So some such quotes can be included, if clearly attributed and cited, but usually not a large number. There is no need to include every possible quote -- a Wikipedia article is supposed to summerize what has been published elsewhere, not repeat all of it. Whethre to include such quotes and how many can be discussed on the talk page of the article in question. DES (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi DES, Thanks! 14:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek.bekhabar (talk • contribs)

Disputed information - how to proceed?

Hi, I've recently had an issue with an edit in the article Bruno Fratus (a Brazilian swimmer). I have started an effort to cover the highlights of each of his seasons. But other editor just removed one entire paragraph, saying that the mentioned times were not hist best on that year.

I believe it's useful information. He doesn't. Moreover, he simply deleted the data, without discussing in the talk page. Actually, he just came to my talk page, and wrote some unfriendly message. So, what's the standard way to solve this type of dispute?

Pedro de Carvalho Gomes 09:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Pcgomes: It seems like a third editor has added the paragraph back, but I've reverted them, as they provided no edit summary and the content was sourced. We don't censor information, even if it may reflect badly on the subject.
If it was me in your shoes, I would start a section on the talk page arguing for inclusion of the content and hope the editors respond there. If they keep on removing the content, I would simply add it back as long as I didn't exceed 3 reversions in 24 hours (or the spirit of that policy), and I might maybe try getting an uninvolved editor's opinion as well (which I suppose you have done by posting here).
This is not quite a personal attack but it's quite rude and seems to imply ownership of the article, or authority over you, neither of which are the case. You were perfectly justified in removing the section from your talk page.
As an aside, your signature doesn't seem to contain any links. It's still possible to find your username in the page history, but this is awkward and becomes very tedious and complicated to do when messages are archived. WP:SIGLINK is policy and it requires that users include at least one link to their user page, talk page or contributions page. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bilorv:, thank you very much for the quick reply. I've seen that the guy has written in the talk page, and that you've replied him. I will discuss the article issue there, from now one. But before, I'd like to clarify one thing, and ask for further guidance.

As you've pointed, this post was rude, but not a direct personal attack from the user Bazaira. However, this was a direct attack one from Star Fiver, which is the one that interacted with you in the talk page. It is written in Portuguese. My translation is the following:

Go back to the crazy losers' Wikipedia, that one in Portuguese, full of retards paid by Partido dos Trabalhadores. Brazilians just know about football, and nothing else. Thus, stay quiet in your insignificance. Go edit the article about Tabajara FC, will you.

This was completely uncalled.This guy was both offending me, and unloading his anger towards Brazilians in general and some political party (PT) from Brazil. It doesn't seem that we're taking to someone reasonable . I wonder if there's some mechanism to report such trolls. It is clear that what he and the other users are trying to do is to gain some dispute by intimidating me. Pcgomes (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this/this is the diff you mean. Ah, okay. I can't read Portuguese. That is definitely beyond the line. I've warned them; for reference, Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace contains the list of warning templates to use and I use "Twinkle" to help me with this. But in this case, it probably wouldn't have been a good idea for you to send the warning personally, as you were the one attacked.
Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Responding to personal attacks suggests that you should ignore a single attack, but that WP:ANI is the place to visit if the attacks become persistent. If necessary, administrators can block users temporarily, or even indefinitely. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Once again, thank you very much for the support. As you could see yourself, he has been very aggressive even to you, though not as much as he was towards me in Portuguese. However, he keeps reverting his deletion, and wants to preserve it by "brute-force". I wonder if we can mark this article as "disputed", or something similar, and prevent him to revert the changes until the dispute is settled. Pcgomes (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
(Racism removed by Bilorv at 16:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)) I've already offered a way to solve the problem. I am hoping you put the information that the time Fratus did was one of the top 10 in the world, and I am hoping you take the wrong information you have entered. Go work. Star Fiver (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Star Fiver should undo his last revert, as it breaks the WP:3RR rule having done 4 reverts since 21.20 yesterday - Arjayay (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
So PCGomes must be blocked, a ton of reverts trying to mantain wrong information in the article. Star Fiver (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
PCGomes has not exceeded 3 reverts within 24 hours. You have. I've removed part of your comment above; racism is not tolerated on Wikipedia, especially not in the Teahouse, which was specifically designed to be as friendly towards editors as possible. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm waiting for the PcGomes block. He insists on mantain wrong information in the article. Bazaira (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Unconfirmed Image Uploading

Hello,

I am the Public Affairs Officer on LPD 26. We have released our seal and I would like to upload this to the page. How can I confirm my account and publish the photo?

Thank you,

MC1 Wilson LPD 26 Public Affairs Office (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello LPD 26 Public Affairs Office, and welcome to the Teahouse. An account becomes confirmed after it has existed for at least 4 days and made at least 20 edits. Until then, requests may be made a Wikipedia:Files for upload. But you say that you have "released our seal". Have you followed all the steps at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials? If not, please do so.
Also, Wikipedia accounts must be for single individuals, not groups or organizations. Please adopt an account name that identifies you personally, not your group. DES (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I had an edit conflict so here is my alternative reply!
Welcome to the Teahouse! I believe that if you make four more edits your account will be autoconfirmed. You should then be able to upload the image, probably under Fair Use, in accordance with Wikipedia:Logos, by going to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard.
Alternatively, if you let us know where on the internet the seal is published, we could upload it for you. The page http://www.nvr.navy.mil/SHIPDETAILS/SHIPSDETAIL_LPD_26.HTML is not loading for me at the moment for some reason.
Incidentally, you may need to change your username to one that does not imply your account is a role account used by an organization. For example, "MC1 Wilson (LPD26)" would be an acceptable username, as would "Bob at LPD26". You could do this at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple.
I assume here that the seal is an emblem, not a Pinniped. Both make sense in the context, as a Landing Platform Dock presumably has facilities capable of both housing and releasing seals. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems my advice is slightly wrong. It would be best to upload the seal at Wikimedia Commons, as was done previously with this image of LPD-17's seal. To do this, you don't need to be confirmed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
We may be unable to help this user further, as they have now been blocked indefinitely by User:Orangemike. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
What they have to do is request an unblock, apply for a re-name that meets our standards, and agree to abide by the customary COI and anti-promotion rules. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I just had a question about the removal of wikilinks in the topic template area at the bottom of pages. I'm on the Iraqi insurgency page and noticed various dead links in that area but I don't know how to enter that area to take them out. Thank you for your help! CoolInu43 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, CoolInu43, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suppose that you refer to the article Iraqi insurgency (2003–11). First of all in your recent edit you removed a number of "dead links". But thse are not dead links in the sense that external links are often dead links. In most cases, those are potential links to topics that soemone thought ought to have an article here on Wikipedia. If that article is ever created, those will become internal wiki-links. In general one should not remove wiki-links simply because they are "red links" (have no current live target, so called because they display in rd by default). Only if the page existed and was deleted, or you are convinved that no such page could ever validly exist, or if they are overwhelming an article, particularly a list, should you remove redlinks, in my view.
Now to the tempaltes. There are no less than six navigation templates at the bottom of that article (a rather larger number than usual). On the left-hand side of the header of each are three letters: V, T, and E. The first links to a VIEW of the template. The second to the template's TALK page, and the thrid to let you EDIT the template. That said, only one of these seems to include redlinks, and those seem well chosen to cover the probable expansion of the topic. I would advise agaisnt removing them. DES (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Note that Wikipedia:Red link says: "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic ... Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." Keep that in mind please, CoolInu43. DES (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi CoolInu43. The only navigation box with red links at the bottom of Iraqi insurgency (2003–11) is "Terrorism in Asia". The box doesn't have its own page but is made by the code {{Asia in topic|Terrorism in}}. The V T E links go to {{Asia in topic}} which is a general template to automatically make similar links for all Asian countries. Countries cannot be omitted in specific articles by editing that template. It is possible to omit selected countries by adding parameters to the template call {{Asia in topic|Terrorism in}}, but I don't recommend doing that. Many articles use {{Asia in topic|Terrorism in}} and it would be confusing if they displayed different countries. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Title protection

What is title protection? When does it happen where I can't create a page with a specific title? Jlab121 (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Title protection happens for a variety of reasons. What was the title of the article you were attempting to create? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
This process is called "salting" and it sometimes happens if people try to create an article that has been determined multiple times not to meet notability criteria, or if a vandal keeps repeatedly creating a page with that name. Special:ProtectedTitles lists these pages: many of them have obvious reasons for salting, such as the titles "Add an article", "Sandbox1" (which are usually created as test pages) or titles with rude words and phrases in them. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion and Tagging

Let's say I create an article UUU. Editor Tim deletes my article. I make the necessary changes, and republish the article. Does Tim get notified of my recreation? Jlab121 (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Jlab121, the answer is possibly but not necessarily - they would be notified if they left the title on their watchlist. However if an article was deleted then it obviously had issues so if recreated you should use Wikipedia:Articles for creation process and create in the draft space.
  • If your concerned about this and the question above about "Title protection" it suggests this article has been repeatedly re-created and deleted - so you should definitely not recreate (unless as a draft or in your own user area). KylieTastic (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The implication above is that the very fact an article was deleted under any process in the past always places a pall on recreation, and that the past deletion addressed something intrinsic about the topic—necessitating or strongly urging creation outside the mainspace, through articles for creation, or as a userspace draft or in the draft namespace. While creation in this manner is often a good idea, the implication is only present if the basis for the deletion addressed the merits (such as after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for discussion at which it appeared insufficient sources existed to sustain an article on the topic on notability grounds). If instead the prior deletion (and reason for salting) was based solely on the existing content, such as via speedy deletion because it was a copyright violation, was mostly blank, was nonsensical and a host of others (which are much more common), you can pretty much safely ignore the past creations and deletions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit count

Hi, The page Edit count is not loading. I am trying to see the statistics of the edits I have done. Is it down these days ? Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

X!'s tools is quite dodgy lately but it's being completely revamped so it should be working properly in a couple of weeks. In the meantime, you can see your edit count at Special:Preferences (fourth line of "Basic information") and I also like to use this tool, which measures your edit count over all Wikimedia projects. They don't have the same detailed statistics but at least they provide a couple of basic numbers. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bilorv, I knew about Special:Preferences but not this tool & yes the Edit Count gives detailed statistics. Thanks! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

How do I mark an article for disambiguation?

I wrote an article on the 1950's artist Andy Johnson, but there's a big message at the top of the save page that says this article already exists (because it's a common name). How do I mark it as something different so I can then link other articles to it? Snookoriva (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the page to Draft:Andy Johnson (artist). This is the way page titles are disambiguated: by including the topic of the subject (in this case, the profession of the person) in brackets. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I know redirects are cheap, but there isn't much point moving a draft article to another draft page with a disambuguating title. Any disambiguation can be taken care of if and when the draft is moved to the main article space.--ukexpat (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Myself, I always do it if I am working on a draft and I see the conflict, but don't intend to immediately accept the article. The earlier the cleanup the less confusion. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, moving a submitted draft will get it out of Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles and remove a warning in the "Review waiting" box that the page already exists. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I need help with footnoting

Hi!

I submitted this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Leslie_Lazarus and it was rejected due to improper citations and footnotes. I have read the beginners guide to footnoting but am totally new to online editing and still can't figure it out. I learn best when someone shows me how. Would someone correct the first citation in my draft article for me, then I can follow and fix the other references. I would be most appreciative and happy to provide the helper in return with coaching or fixing up their Resume which I excel at! Thanks MarcellaMarcella.lazarus (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marcella.lazarus. Your references are formatted properly, but if any of them are available online, then a URL field should be added so that a reader can click to find the references. The issue that I see is whether or not this person is notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. The relevant notability guideline can be found at WP:ACADEMIC. Please show in your draft how this person meets that guideline. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Marcella.lazarus. Thanks for your question. Please let me clear something up you didn't ask. Wikipedia is not a "tit for tat" kind of place. We edit here, we help people at the tea house nit for any kind of consideration, but because we want to. Editing for pay, or any other kind of consideration is a very contentious topic on Wikipedia and one best to be avoided. As you see, others are happy to help. No inducement is needed.John from Idegon (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Hello, I don't really understand how to choose references adequately to show the subject's notability. Article is Evans Waterless Coolant. Please help. Thank you. Emilia12 (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: In case anybody was wondering, the article referred to above is probably this draft: Draft:Evans Waterless Coolant. CabbagePotato (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello @Emilia12: What we require for an article is that third parties (those not related to the subject of the article) have found the subject "worthy of note " - discussed in a significant manner and that those sources are "reliable" - that they have a reputation of accuracy, fact checking and editorial oversight. these might range from academic peer reviewed papers, to major newspapers or book or magazine publishers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the draft indicated above, if that is the correct one, I have a comment, a tip and a question. The comment is that the refs appear solid enough to me to support an article. I added a {{reflist}} template to the ref section and ran reFill to fill out the references. You need to cut and paste the actual formatted references up into the body of the article, right after the period at the end of the sentence they reference. When you are done, all you will see in edit mode under the reference heading is the reflist template. That's the tip. The question is why I thought I had a question. Doah! Hope this is helpful. Let me know when you get it done and we'll take another look at it. John from Idegon (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

add a player profile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_national_rugby_league_team how do i add a player profile to Brad HargreavesBrad Hargreaves 13 (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Brad Hargreaves 13:! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not have "profiles" - it has articles about subjects that meet certain criteria: essentially that other people have discussed the topic in a relatively detailed manner. See Wikipedia:Your first article for information about how to get started! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Brad Hargreaves 13. In addition to what TheRedPenOfDoom posted above, you might also want to take a look at Wikipedia's policy regarding using "real names" as a username. Wikipedia's username policy does not allow editors to "edit under a name that is likely to imply that [they] are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is [their] real name." Moreover, "if a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided." So, unless your real name is actually "Brad Hargreaves", you should probably change your Wikipedia username to something else so as to avoid any confusion or send an email officially verifying your identity to info-en@wikimedia.org. If, however, you are really "Brad Hargreaves" the rugby player or anyone connected to him (professionally or personally), then you should read then it is likely that you have a conflict of interest and should avoid editing or adding content about him on Wikipedia. If you do have a COI, then please Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide to familiarize yourself with what kinds of edits are considered OK to make. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

RE: Mike Snowden entry I have added a number of footnotes with references in this entry. I also have a list of links that match up with the footnotes. I have no been able to figure out how to get those links into the footnotes, so a reader can click on the footnote and be taken to the link. For example, footnote 1 references an article in the current issue of the online magazine Craftsmanship. My first link is to that article. Can you direct me to instructions on how to put that link in the first footnote? Thanks. Nietzsche40 (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Nietzsche40: and welcome to the Teahouse!
The process for footnoting can be found here: WP:REFB.
Essentially, you should put the citation information between "ref tags": <ref> CITE DETAILS HERE</ref> - and then the Wiki-magic will display the full footnote at the bottom of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of some parts of a Wiki article

Hi! I have edited this article in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Lovers_Centre

I noticed that a lot of the sections have been deleted. Is it possible to rewrite those sections?

Thank you for your help! Kacg8508 (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Kacg8508:. It is "possible" - if you get consensus on the talk page by establishing in a manner that other editors agree that the content is 1) appropriate for an encyclopedia (see WP:NOTADVERT / WP:COPYRIGHT for example) 2) appropriately referenced (see WP:V / WP:RS ) and 3) presented in an appropriate manner (see WP:NPOV / WP:OR ). I haven't looked at the specific content, but I know the editor who removed large portions of the article is familiar with content policies and so they probably had a valid reason for removing that material. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@Kacg8508: As TheRedPenOfDoom mentioned above, it is technically possible to reinstate those sections; however, that would be quite inadvisable in this case. As ONUnicorn pointed out to you at the Help Desk, those sections needed to be removed because they seemed to promote the retailer. Information about businesses (and everything else) must be presented from a neutral and unbiased point of view. CabbagePotato (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

How do I do this?Kerrisdalian (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kerrisdalian If you are talking about linking a page here to an existing page on the same topic on another language Wikipedia (to be shown in the language links on the left hand side of the page), then see Wikipedia:Wikidata. In short, you would click on "Add links" under Languages at the bottom left hand side of a page and then follow the prompts from there. If you are talking about making an in-text link to another language page (an "interlanguage link"), then this is done by placing the two-letter ISO 639-1 language code of the foreign Wikipedia after a colon, followed by another colon and then the exact name of the foreign page. For example, to link to the German Wikipedia's Teahouse, you would type [[:de:Wikipedia:Teestube/Konzept]], which would format as de:Wikipedia:Teestube/Konzept (and of course if you wanted it to display as "German Wikipedia's Teahouse", you would pipe the link like so: [[:de:Wikipedia:Teestube/Konzept|German Wikipedia's Teahouse]]). See also the templates {{ill}}, {{ill2}}, and {{ill-WD}}, which allow you to present a link to a foreign language page, while still showing the link to be red-colored so as to not disguise the link as having an article here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! If I'm linking from German Wikipedia, do I use ":en"?Kerrisdalian (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kerrisdalian
Yes you can use ":en" for english
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 04:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

How do I indicate that the page I'm working on for Toby Lerner Ansin is a work in progress?

How do I indicate that the page I'm working on for Toby Lerner Ansin is a work in progress?Sanford1504 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The article has been moved to Draft:Toby Lerner Ansin where the prefix "draft" identifies it as a work under construction. Please use the Draft space or your sandbox for work that is not "ready for prime time". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

:The easiest approach is to construct the article as a draft and then only submit it for inclusion when you are happy that it is in good shape. You can move an existing article to draft using the "Move" option. The article will then be Draft:Toby Lerner Ansin. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   21:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

All of Wikipedia is a work in progress.Charles (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Sanford1504:, starting articles directly into the main article space is always risky if you don't have sufficient references etc all ready to go. Although you can use the {{under construction}} tag it's a lot safer to start articles in your sandbox or in the draft name space. As your article had been tagged for deletion (again) I've moved it to Draft:Toby Lerner Ansin where you can work on it at leisure. Nthep (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so should never be cited as a reference, and please read Referencing for beginners for how to format references. - Arjayay (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

difficult to document

I have a fact that has never been published anywhere. This is a plain vanilla fact, no opinion or judgment, about a familial relationship. "X is first cousin to the father of Y; so X and Y are first cousins once removed."

In books, I've seen an author reference a private conversation at times for a fact, so I could cite a private conversation with the subject of the article. Is that done on wikipedia?

Since this relates to a family relationship, perhaps one could find something through ancestry.com. I'm completely unfamiliar with genealogical research, but I don't mind trying.

Any suggestions? Anyone know if I might be able to assemble suitable info through genealogical sites? Any guidance will be very gratefully accepted.

Many thanks. Valuenyc (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Valuenyc. What you describe is a perfect example of original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to "dig up the facts". Instead, we summarize what reliable published sources say about a topic. It is difficult for me to imagine why we would mention that two people are first cousins once removed, as that seems to be a triviality. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Valuenyc, Unless the exact nature of this relationship is a significant fact in their biographies, then I agree with Cullen328 that there is no need to mention it. If it is significant, then some puiblished source should have discusssed it. In any case, we don't use unpublished sources here on Wikipedia. DES (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It would be a very short mention, probably a "note" in fact. I'd argue with Cullen328's "triviality" characterization but, given the distinction drawn, the issue is moot. These are familiar words in a new context, puzzle pieces falling into place. So I appreciate your articulating that distinction. And I can pass on opening up a whole new line of study (genealogy and related sites). ;-) Valuenyc (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Valuenyc I think you might find WP:WikiProject Genealogy useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments?

Hi, I've listed a request for comment at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Kworb. It's the second time it's been listed as last time got no input, and I'd appreciate it if anyone could give comment. Thanks Azealia911 talk 12:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

BACKGROUND COLOUR OF CELL IN TABLE

Cannot seem to master the HTML codes to display a background colour for cells in my WIKI table. (Have used most other help options on WIKI Spot etc)

Stephaniersvpr (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stephaniersvpr, welcome to the Teahouse. You can for example write style="background: yellow; | before the cell content (omit the vertical bar if there already is one from other cell declarations). See more at Help:Table#Color; scope of parameters. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Page design for an artist

Hi there, I recently submitted a page called Michael Fitzpatrick (painter) for review and it was declined "because this is not at all how an artist page is written". How is it written and what do I change?

Alexa336 (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Alexa336: and welcome to the Teahouse.
With regards to the draft article, remember that we are writing an encyclopedia article and not a promo blurb for a gallery opening, so an "artists statement" is definitely out of place.
An article about a person will generally have a little bit about their early life/family/education. Then it will go on to the major things that the person has done that have been covered by third party sources. As for an artist, it might then include a "Reception [and impact]" section where professional reviews are cited and where third parties have commented upon the impact the artist has had on a particular field or other artists (or the reviews and commentary might be incorporated within the career description). Then if appropriate a list of specific noted works and or shows and potentially a section about any awards. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello @Alexa336:, as recommended in the pink box, "Please see WP:Notability (artists) for requirements." Have you had a chance to read that guideline yet? That will answer the majority of your questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The term "side" in football

I have looked overt a few articles on football and one term that I cannot find defined is the term "side" which can mean a particular level of a league, division etc or a particular team in a match. Where in WP are terms for football so that I can propose it for definition for those that are not familiar with the lingo of that sport?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Srednuas Lenoroc: and welcome to the Teahouse!
You may want to bring your concern to Talk:Glossary of association football terms, but be aware that Wikipedia is not a dictionary , it is an encyclopedia, and so it seems to me to be unlikely that any of the "sides" used in Association football will qualify as an encyclopedia topic. The option which would probably be more effective is to go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and suggest a clean up project where the use of the word in articles is clarified for general readers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
According to point 8 at wikt:side#Etymology 1 it is a general British English term for a sports team. "side" is also a common English Word used in many other contexts including in Football. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW as a native BrEng speaker and footie fan, I have never heard "side" used to mean "a particular level of a league, division etc".--ukexpat (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking for second opinion

I am unsure if this article still needs a {{newsrelease}} tag for promotional content or if this can now be removed. Thanks, Rubbish computer 15:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

This is no longer relevant as I have removed the template. Rubbish computer 13:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Deliberate errors

Looking at more reference errors but I think the reference errors in This article are actually deliberate, is this vandelism? CV9933 (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@CV9933:, no it's not vandalism. This article has the references presented in a slightly different way to many articles and it involves defining all the references in the References section rather than in the text. The message you are seeing is just a note that there are some references defined which are not used in the text of the article. Nthep (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
CV9933, welcome to the Teahouse. This form of citation is called List Directed References and many editors think it a superior method -- many others dislike it. I for one like it. I ahve commtned out the unused refs with an HTML comment so their text is available if anyone wants it in further editing of the article, but meanwhile there is no error message displayed. DES (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
DES I understand the different referencing techniques as I have being fixing references for the last couple of days. It seems quite a few editors make large changes removing references in the process with the consequence that declared references are no longer used and hence a cite error. However if you look in this case [Here] it doesn’t seem to be an oversight but more of a deliberate attempt to compromise the article. CV9933 (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
CV9933, I c an see why you might think that edit was badly motivaed. I have no idea what the editor's motive was. It appears that the edit removed some sizable blocks of article contnt, while adding othrs. and that a subsequent edit by a diffrent editor removed the blocks added by the first, leaving the net effect simply the removal. But the parts added in the first edit were not irrelevant, and may hav been intended to improve te article in the opnion of the first editor. The place to discuss whether either of these edits iimproves the article (I advise staying away from the question of whether they were ill-intentioned or not; discuss content, not editors, when possible) is Talk:Dialect coach. I propose to raise the topic there. DES (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
DES Thanks for all your help, time for a nice cup of tea.CV9933 (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
<pedantic>They are "list-defined references" actually. </pedantic>--ukexpat (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Tagging of user subpages

What's going on? My subpages are being tagged with {{orphan}}, and {{uncategorized}}. How am I supposed to create backlinks and categories before I have even created the article. Jodosma (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Se my respons on my talk page. It was not in your userspace, but in mainspace. You had forgotten the User:-part. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What should I do to make my article to be published?

Hi! I've received this: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies." But I see that other creators in similar businesses write their articles in the same style and even with more advertisement! During previous editions I have removed from my article a lot of "ad materials" as you called it. It's just a medical school and graduates become healtcare personal to help people. That's all. Is there any chance my article may be published?188.162.39.6 (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What is the title of the draft please?--ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
And please point out the other articles about businesses written by their owners so we can delete them. Otherwise, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, IP user. Have you found reliable published sources (such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers - not blogs, or user-contributed sources such as Wikipedia or social media) where people with no connection to the medical school have written about it? If you have, then there can be an article, which should be based almost entirely on what those independent people have written about the business. If there are hardly any such sources, then it is simply not possible to write an acceptable article about the school at present. --ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Ian.thomson if they pass the notability test we can also improve articles that are inadequate, not just delete them.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Vchimpanzee This is a draft rejection under the AfC process. Rejected drafts are most often not deleted, the creators are encouraged to improve them. That's precisely what makes AfC so useful, you have options other than keep and delete. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Happysquirrel the comment was about the other articles that had problems.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Vchimpanzee It's my experience that articles written by the subject or subject's owner or employees do not pass the notability test. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Confused feedback on new article

I have recently written my first Wikipedia article... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Association_of_Guernsey_Charities. After submitting for review, I had some useful feedback for alterations and further citations. There was a note to say it is a "well written article". I have now received a another review with the comment to say that the article is too detailed!

Before starting to write the article I researched lots of other articles about similar organisations to see how much detail to include. I thought that I had included an appropriate level of detail - but would welcome some additional comments / feedback please. Thanks in advance. MalcolmWoodhams (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

MalcolmWoodhams -- I agree that it is too detailed. Something can be well-written but too detailed -- I think the first reviewer was trying to be nice and in doing so gave you the wrong idea... I would cut the article down to 25% (maximum) of its current length. I recommend removing everything (or almost everything) that cannot be sourced to independent reliable sources (i.e. not charity.org.gg). Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I have deleted the article as an unambiguous copyright violation. MalcolmWoodhams: given that you cited much of the content to the source of the copyright infringements, I don't think you did this with an understanding it was problematic, but sources are used to verify material you've written in your own words. To be clear, you can use relatively short quotations under fair use, but you must attribute them properly, usually with quote marks, in-text attribution and an inline citation, and such quotes cannot make up the bulk of an article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

section 17 NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

where would I be able to source this act Aboriginal ( NB: Applicant’s race is a genuine occupational qualification and authorised by section 17 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977,NSW)(203.134.77.37 (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Please note for future reference that this page is for questions related to Wikipedia. Knowledge questions like this can be asked at the reference desk. That being said, you can download the complete act here. This was found through the first link displayed when searching Google for Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Article was declined at Articles for Creation. Help.

First time article declined. A bit confusing for me. Any assistance would be much appreciated. Thank you. User_talk:Quick9, Draft:Billy_Gillespie Quick9 (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The article does not contain any references. Please add references before resubmitting the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello @Quick9:. Wikipedia is not a directory, it is an encyclopedia, and before a subject can have a stand alone article, it must be established that reliable sources, unconnected with the subject, have found the subject worthy of in depth coverage which is done through providing citations to reliably published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Quick9. Glad you stopped by. I couldn't help but notice that in the article, and to a lesser extent in your question here, you did not use complete sentences. Wikipedia is not an online forum. Your contributions to this encyclopedia need to be made in proper English. As long as you are consistent, it doesn't matter whether it is British, Australian, American or Indian English, but it has to be grammatically correct. John from Idegon (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What guidelines have I not conformed to?

I got a message saying "Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Skate Maloley, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained." What guidelines have I not conformed to? Why can I not create my wikipedia page? Fayeliddell (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fayeliddell. The message on your user talk page says "This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia". Wikipedia is not a repository for everything that exists: we require that articles be almost entirely based on independent published information about a subject, so a proposed article must show that suitable independent published sources exist. There are many useful links on your user talk page, but I recommend you start with the ones in the box on the right.--ColinFine (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Why was my article declined?

Hi I had created an article about a company that deals in airline consolidation. I had used neutral sources for reference, yet it was declined. Here is the link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mystifly can anyone help in getting it written in a way that wiki accepts Dipps13 (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dipps13. Wikipedia does not have opinions or make evaluations, so Wikipedia articles must not express opinions or evaluations (unless they are directly taken from cited independent sources). Looking at the start of the draft, I see:
  • "that help simplify..." - that is opinion, not objective fact.
  • "innovation" - marketing speak, not objective fact
  • "wide plethora" - marketing speak for "several"
  • "A white label solution" - meaningless marketing speak
None of the claims in the first section is supported by a citation to a published source. In fact, though your references appear to be to reliable sources, I have significant doubts as to whether any of them are independent of Mystifly: they all read as if they are written from press releases.
Please understand that for a Wikipedia article to be acceptable, every single statement in it must be cited to a reliable published source, and nearly all of them must be cited to sources that are independent of the subject. You need to find a number of articles about Mystifly which have been written by people who have no connection with it, (and not based on press releases), and rewrite the article, confining it to what those independent sources have said about it. If you cannot find such articles, then I'm afraid it is at present impossible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article about it (the jargon for this is that it is not 'notable'). --ColinFine (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

third party references

We are preparing to write an article about AEDP (accelerated, experiential, dynamic, psychotherapy), and we want to know if: 1) material from books written by AEDP developer, on AEDP, would count as a 3rd party references since it is published by a renowned publisher, 2) the sage encyclopedia on counseling and psychotherapy with chapter on AEDP written by developer of aedp would count as 3rd party reference 3) is a 3rd party reference only someone who has no affiliation whatsoever with AEDP?Carrieruggieri (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Carrieruggieri and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answers are: No, No, and Yes. An independent secondary reliable source should be written by someone who has no significant affiliation or association with the subject. This means a person who is not a principal or an employee, and has no significant financial, emotional, or personal affiliation with the subject. It also means that a source that merely regurgitates the writings of an affiliate (such as a Press Release from the subject) is not considered independent either. Souces must be independent to count towards notability, althoguh non-indpendant sources may be used for non-controversial basic facts (dates and names, etc) and the subject's own views, clearly marked as such, or for sourcing quotes from the subject or its affiliates, clearly atributed and identified, and cited inline. An "AEDP developer" would not be considered independant of AEDP, I would think. If such a person is independant, please explain the nature of the relationship. DES (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, who are the "we" who are preparing to write an article? - do you have a conflict of interest? - if so, please read and follow our policies as explained in WP:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide - Arjayay (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Carrieruggieri, Arjayay makes an excellant point. Wikipedia accounts should be used only by a single person, and people editing articles about subjects that they are conencted with should do so only in accordance with out Conflict of interest guideline. DES (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I am writing the article but I am doing so with the permission of the aedp institute faculty. I am a student of aedp. I will follow the conflict of interest guidelines.Carrieruggieri (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Carrieruggieri. I'm afraid that permission from the aedp institute faculty is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. They have no control whatever over an article about them: any article should be 100% based on reliable published sources, and nearly 100% based on what sources unconnected with the subject of the article have published about it. What the subject has said about themselves, or wants or doesn't want in the article, is of no consequence for Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Arjayay, DES, and ColinFine for information to avoid conflict of interestCarrieruggieri (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

How might I correct a beginning mistake?

I wrote an article that I thought was for practice, in the sandbox, but it got marked for speedy deletion. The article is about the Penny University, founded by historian Page Smith, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Smith The Penny University is an important part of the history of UCSC. Also, it is not an organization, and has no mission statement, though it has alleviated problems such as housing for the homeless, and could be a useful model for other towns. For these reasons, I believe a case can be made for it to be in an encyclopedia. My main question is this: if I develop the article in the sandbox according to the guidelines, with references and links from other wikipedia pages, do I have to make a special appeal to have the page reconsidered?

UnivLangs (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, UnivLangs, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article you created was at The Penny University which is in the main article space, not any sort of sandbox, and so it was immediately subject to all the content policies and guidelines. It was about a group of people (which we tend to describe as an "organization" for such purposes, whether there is a formal organization or not), and it did not make clear why that group was significant or might be notable.
What i have done is to restore the text and move it to Draft:The Penny University where it can be worked on until it complies with the various guidelines, and then reviewed by an experienced editor. DES (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
What you would need to do, UnivLangs, is find and add citations to reliable sources that are independent of the group (and its members), and have discussed it in some detail to establish it's notability. Newspaper (not just local) or magazine coverage would be good, as would discussion in a book. Sources need not be online, although if they are, a link is wanted. Don't worry about the precise formatting of the citations, others can help with that. Just get them listed somehow, with an indication of what fact(s) each supports. However you might want to read our referencing for Beginners page. I hope this helps DES (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_361&oldid=1138689394"