Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 410

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 405

←

Archive 408

→

Should an author's name be linked inside a citation?

Today I received notification that the Valiant Lady (radio) article was changed, with a link having been added to create a link to Gerald Nachman within a citation.

Should author's names in citations usually be linked if they have pages on Wikipedia? I have not been doing that, and I wonder whether I should begin that practice. Eddie Blick (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Teblick. The edit was [1]. Reference authors with a Wikipedia biography are often linked but it's not a rule and only done in a minority of the cases. The edit did it in a wrong way. I have changed it to the right way at Template:Cite book#Authors.[2] The link was added by the user who created Gerald Nachman (journalist) today. When users create an article it's common to look for existing mentions which can be linked to the new article. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.PrimeHunter! I appreciate the feedback. I am accustomed to looking for existing mentions of subjects when I create articles, but I had not considered the possibility of linking within a reference. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is is good practice to link to an article on the author if there is one, because it lets the reader check the credibility of the citation. I often forget... Aymatth2 (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Find link, a tool written by Edward Betts for wikipedia, to make wikilinks on existing pages to a new page, was used so that Gerald Nachman (journalist) is no longer an orphan page. I didn't notice the {{cite book|author-link= ...}} parameter... Also, there are two Jerry Nachmans, Gerald Nachman and Jerome Nachman, and there is probably a better way to name and link the network of related pages through moving/editing pages such as Nachman and Gerald Nachman. I had vaguely remembered there was a person with a similar career and similar sounding name while deciding on the name of Gerald Nachman, but did not ascertain Jerome Nachman until the middle of web research. Any suggestions the best way to name and link these pages ? Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk)

The idea is to help most readers get to the page they are looking for as quickly as possible. In this case, a quick web search indicates that if they are looking for "Jerry Nachman" they are most likely (50% or more) to be looking for the MSNBC one, so the Jerry Nachman article has the right title, and the pointer at the top of that article to the other journalist is right too. Gerald Nachman (journalist) is an o.k. title for the SF journalist, but Gerald Nachman may be better, since it is shorter. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Gerald Nachman redirects to Gerald Nachman (journalist) so a move would probably make things simpler. Would a "move" update all links currently pointing to Gerald Nachman (journalist) ? Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Are secondary sources in another language okay?

Hello. I'm working on a draft of an article for "Blade Arcus from Shining," a Japanese video game. It's a relatively obscure game and the secondary sources I'm finding generally come from Japanese websites. Any English source I find would reference back to those same Japanese web articles, making them tertiary sources in my understanding. Will I run into a problem with the Article For Creation process if I submit it with just Japanese sources? KwRIOT (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey KwRIOT, welcome to the Teahouse. Thankfully, you have no need to worry. WP:NOENG is part of a Wikipedia policy called Verifiability, and if you have a quick look it says that it's fine to cite non-English sources if English ones can't be found. Just make sure that if you quote a non-English source that you translate it beforehand. NottNott talk|contrib 09:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ok to edit a template?

About a week ago I posted a suggestion to add an "other_names" parameter to the infobox template for architects, on the template Talk page. I feel it is especially important for women architects, who often work under both a birth name and one or more married or professional names at different stages of their career. I do a lot of writing/editing in architecture pages and in some cases have resorted to using the generic 'person' infobox because I felt the architects' infobox was less informative. I've had no response to my query. So is it cool to just go ahead and add a parameter to an existing infobox template or is there somewhere else I should take my suggestion first?Alafarge (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, assuming you are confident that you can work with the template coding I think now you should be WP:BOLD and make your edit (carefully!). Check a few pages which use the template after making the edit to check your edit hasn't broken anything, and revert if there are any unintended consequences. --LukeSurl^{t c} 15:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it a (careful) shot when I have a little time.Alafarge (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What's happened to my article

I wrote an article, titled "Southern 80", a few weeks ago, but now I'm not sure what's happened to it. I believe I submitted it for checking and then publishing, and it said it might take a few days, but I'm not sure what's happened - and I'm finding the Wikipedia user interface a bit awkward to use/overwhelming. So hoping someone can point me in the right directionJminchin80 (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jminchin80. It's here. --John from Idegon (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jminchin80! For future reference, you can always access your contributions list by clicking the "Contributions" link at the top-right of every page. In this case, your contributions are viewable at Special:Contributions/Jminchin80. As John mentioned, your article draft appears to be here — and it doesn't look like you've submitted it for review. You can do so by placing {{subst:Submit}} at the top of the page. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, it has not been submitted for review. If I were reviewing it in its current state, I would not accept it. It's quite well written, but unfortunately good prose is not what qualifies an article for publication. You need reliable, independent sources writing about it in detail. Your sources are not that. The sponsoring club is not independent, and a magazine published by an insurance company is of dubious reliability. What you need are magazine (mainstream magazines, not trade or advertising publications) or newspaper stories. Water skiing a couple miles killed me, even as a teen. Can't imagine doing it for a hundred miles. Good luck. --John from Idegon (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi John. Thanks very much for your feedback. I did have that concern when I submitted the article, regarding references. For a niche activity like this, which does not feature in mainstream media, nor for which there are any books published, how would you suggest I find some reliable sources? I can try to use the newspaper from the town which the water-skiing event is held, but apart from this sources do not exist. Look forward to your response, and thanks again for the help. Jminchin80 (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, coverage in mainstream media is pretty much what qualifies a subject for an article. Lacking coverage in magazines, books, newspapers, tv & radio news, or trusted academic journals, a subject just doesn't qualify for an article. For certain subjects, and events are one, that coverage has to be from a widespread area. So Altho adding things from the local paper will not hurt, it may not get you over the hurdle either. FYI, I did decline your article, and in the process of reviewing it, moved it to Draft:Southern 80. John from Idegon (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've just resubmitted my first article, titled "Southern 80". I have tried to find better quality sources, as requested. I'm just a little unsure if it's been submitted for correction properly - still getting used to things on Wikipedia. Hoping someone might be able to check for me? Jminchin80 (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jminchin80, as the pink box at the top now says: "This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review." It has been properly submitted for review. I see that you added a number of source citations. I haven't reviewed those in detail, but the AfC reviewer should do so. DES ^(talk) 01:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The draft has been approved and the article can now be found at Southern 80. Thank you for contributing an article to Wikipedia! Feel free to return to the Teahouse with any future questions. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 17:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Publishing of new pages

I saved my company dot com sandbox details today 02.11.2015, when shall i expect my page will be published IEleads (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You may have saved it, but you have not submitted it for review. Please return to it and click the big green button. Nothing will happen until you do.

A volunteer reviewer will review it in due course and may push it back to you for further work, or may find it unsuitable for inclusion if the org fail WP:CORP, for example Fiddle Faddle 18:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If you do submit it, it will be declined. You have a conflict of interest because the article is about your company. The draft article in the sandbox also does not provide evidence of corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Declined for the reasons predicted and noted on the draft prior to submission. Fiddle Faddle 19:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The reasons for this decline are well defined in the Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

Xavier (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Avoiding Libel?

I'm writing a BLP. Some sources (blogs as well as published biographies of others) describe this person's behavior in his profession as being "semi-shady" based on interviews with people who know him. IMO, no firm evidence is provided to support this conclusion. Notability is established by other accomplishments. What are my responsibilities as a writer? Can I omit this negative information and still maintain NPOV? I have no connection with this person but I feel uncomfortable about having my user ID here associated with written allegations that I can neither prove nor disprove. I don't want to be accused of libel. Thanks for your thoughts. Kekki1978 (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Your primary responsibility is to include only things backed up by scrupulous references in WP:RS that back up every fact you assert that is susceptible to potential challenge. I use the following to judge BLP references:

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, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make an article clear of accusations of libel. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person or fact is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

I hope that is some assistance. Fiddle Faddle 18:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Libel is complex, as I am sure you can appreciate. If you consider something might be a potential libel then the wise course is not to include it. The challenge is compounded by the fact that even a reliable source can be accused of uttering a libel and, by reproducing that which is in the original utterance, Wikipedia can then be accused of uttering a libel.

We are not news media. We do not have to be first with the news, thus can await any new external material "Settling down" until it is relatively obvious what is and is not a potential libel. Fiddle Faddle 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Having said that, my opinion (and I am not a lawyer) is that one can say "John Doe has been reported in The FuBar Times to have (insert difficult topic here)" with a citation to The FuBar Times precisely to the article in which it is stated. Beware WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Fiddle Faddle 18:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Also things like WP:BLPCRIME come into play - we should generally wait until verdict or at least until trial before being part of the dissemination of allegations. (except maybe in those cases where the media circus about allegations itself becomes notable). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Myrtle is in a muddle.

Dear Tea House host, I have been copyediting May 1941 Sanski Most revolt and although I think the text is now ok, the citations are a muddle of the 'ref' sort and 'sfn' sort. A little while ago I asked here about leaving the quotes in the citations and with the response I went back and made sure they are all intact. Now I need some guidance, I'm afraid, about how to achieve some consistency in the citation style or whether to leave well alone. Any help is much appreciated. Kind regards, Myrtle the uncertain. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Myrtlegroggins, and welcome back to the Teahouse. I took a quick look at the article in question and, while the combination of citation styles may not be ideal, it does seem to provide the necessary information for each citation to allow readers to verify each one for themselves should they so desire. Citing multiple page ranges in a single book is often handled better by the sfn method than by the other method. So I would advise leaving well enough alone in this instance. Thanks for copy-editing the article, and feel free to return to the Teahouse with any future questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 17:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. I was so hoping you would say that :-) Happy days! Kind regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't find what I wrote.

A few hours ago, I posted (and I'm practically certain that it was here) a question asking why I could not see a record of an edit I made on my watch list (even though it was and still is listed on my changes page) or any subsequent edit(s) to that one at Balmoral Park. Now I can't find my question either! Kdammers (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Kdammers. Your previous question can be accessed via this link: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#What's happened to my article. Or you could simply search on "Southern 80" using your browser's search-within-page function (usually Ctrl-F or Cmd-F). —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 04:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that has nothing to do with the race track. Kdammers (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Kdammers I looked carefully at that section where you posted earlier. You tried to ask a new question without creating a new heading, so your question did not get a response. People were responding to the question the section was about. Here is your question, which I took the liberty of moving so everything would be in one place— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Moved from another section— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I just went to the draft site and saw that it has been declined. While I have absolutely no background in this sport or event, at least on the surface, it seems that the sources meet the golden rule. Could other editors please take a look and see what they think? Kdammers (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

User page question

Is it against the rules to write my own short biography on my user page, granted I am not self promoting and not using pictures? All links would be purely internal and the purpose is strictly for introducing myself to the community.

I also want to create the biography in "Wiki layout fashion" so as to get some practice in for creating pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavier enc (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have read most of the rules and guidelines topics and have not found any mention of this behavior. --Xavier (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Most folk put something about themselves on their user page. I would not put your resumé, but I would certainly put there material that you feel comfortable with revealing to the world. Remember that search engines have ling memories.

I have some thing about me on mine, but not a huge amount, for example. Others have more detail, some have none at all. Fiddle Faddle 18:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I can see from your user page that I am not the only one who is going for this layout.

I have another question in relation to this subject. Does listing my professions and their corresponding internal links for educational purposes violate the rules and guidelines? My intention is to encourage education on a broad number of subjects through example. Seeing as how this is an Encyclopedia, only a user page seems fit for such intentions.

--Xavier (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Xavier enc: I think it is fine to do so. The full answer can change depending on what you put there of course. I imagine that, were you to keep a brothel and link to that brothel, purely for educational purposes, that might well be disapproved of. The answer here is to be wise. Fiddle Faddle 18:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what I expected to hear. I do not want any external links on my user page.

Thank you --Xavier (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Xavier enc: do the WP:UPYES and WP:UPNO pages help? Generally you are encouraged to put stuff as it relates to your editing of Wikipedia: Interests, biases, resources you have access to or services (like translations) that you can provide.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Yes these pages do. I have already read the entire article on what Wiki is and is not. Then, I read it again for posterity. The one on User pages was new for me. This really cleared things up for me. It would seem that a short Bio is acceptable as long as it contributes to Wiki's goals and of course is not self promotion.

--Xavier (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: I would also like to take the time to clarify, for any other readers out there, the following point on the subject of biographies on a user page: Wikipedia is not a web host. I think this message is pretty straightforward. So in other words, if my content has excessive personal content and strays from the goals of Wikipedia, than my content might be in violation.

--Xavier (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Xavier enc: yes, that is right. and in most cases of "violation" what would happen is you would be asked to remove it, or someone would edit to remove inappropriate content. It is generally pretty non-controversial, particularly if the user is serious and flexible in wanting to support the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Thank you. I believe my user page currently falls under guidelines. I really just wanted to add a content box near the top to organize it better.--Xavier (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

UserPage to article

I made an article for Peter Kuttner but when I was moving it out of my sandbox I accidentally set it as a user instead of an article. Now I cant move it without changing my username? How can I get my article into the main space? Heres a link to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Kuttner Thanks! Kolvitamin (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Somebody with rollbacker rights will have to do it. I tried to move it and only succeeded in moving it to Wikipedia space, not regular article space. A rollbacker should be able to fix it though. Add: I think I successfully moved it to mainspace. It's Peter Kuttner (filmmaker). You don't have to change your username or anything. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 03:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

It seems this has been fixed now, the article is now at Peter Kuttner. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Earth Impact Blast of Asteroid Hit and COI

I asked a question in the Talk section of 2015 TB145. It hasn't been answered there yet. I'm asking the same question again here in case this would be a better place to ask. Hope that's ok.

I wrote a story about the near miss of 2015 TB145. As far as I know, mine is the only story to give an estimate of the crater size had the object hit the Earth. Describing the potential damage seems relevant and should be part of the Wikipedia entry. If I want to add that detail and reference my own article, how do I do that without it being a COI?

Robin Rowe (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Robinrowe, and welcome to the Teahouse. Basically, you don't. A "story" (which I assume means a work of fiction in this case) would pretty much never be a reliable source for such a fact in a Wikipedia article, even if you didn't have a WP:COI, which you do in citing your own work. Even if this were a non-fiction article, published by a reliable publisher so that it does constitute an RS, you should not be the one to cite it. If it doesn't constitute an RS, no one should cite it. And in general, as per WP:CRYSTAL that sort of what-if speculation is not encouraged in Wikipedia articles, although it can sometimes be used to illustrate a point or a theory. I think you should drop this idea. DES ^(talk) 17:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The "story" Robinrowe linked to seems to be a "story" in the sense of "news story" rather than fiction. GoshTV, the publisher, does not appear to be a reliable source to quote in a Wikipedia article, however. For something like this, a statement by NASA would be a good source for an estimate of what size the crater might have been; but then, if NASA had provided such an estimate, it would be strange for no secondary sources (such as newspapers, magazines, or scholarly journals) to report that estimate. In any case, as DES said, even if the GoshTV piece were a reliable source, due to the conflict of interest issue you should not be the one to cite something you have written. Posting at Talk:2015 TB145 pointing out the existence of the piece you wrote was the right thing to do; in such cases, if another editor finds the source reliable, they may add the information. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 21:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this particular GoshTV source should not be considered reliable. However, our guideline on conflicts of interest does allow self citing within strict limits. The shortcut is WP:SELFCITE.

"Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."

I have cited my own published writing in one Wikipedia article, and asked on an administrator's talk page for people to review what I had added. Several took a look and had no objections. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

First, I'm grateful to hear everyone's suggestions. However, it was disappointing that someone felt qualified to give his opinion on the integrity of my article he obviously hadn't read.

NASA made light of the danger of asteroid 2015 TB145. Most journalists aren't scientists. If they were, the media would have calculated the blast effect themselves and caught on that the NASA press release they based their stories on had spin, that it downplayed the danger.

Two here gave the opinion that my publication is not a sufficiently reliable source to quote in a Wikipedia article. That harsh opinion was given without any explanation why, just a link to RTFM. I've written for Popular Science and many other magazines and academic journals. I write to the same standard no matter what size the publisher is. To be reliable must a source be big, that is, owned by a multinational corporation or a billionaire?

I write journalism to a high standard, as anyone who read my 2015 TB145 article can see. The facts and quotes come from authoritative sources and have links to references. It's not an opinion piece. The article is not about me. I write to the same or a higher standard than Wikipedia aspires. And, I continuously seek to do better.

If my article or publisher isn't good enough in your opinion, please tell me specifically what needs to be done to improve this article or this publisher.

I look forward to your feedback, Robin Rowe (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Robin Rowe. Wikipedia policy is that all assertions of fact should be backed up by reference to reliable sources — which Wikipedia defines as having editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Popular Science has both, but the article (I'll avoid calling it a story here for clarity's sake) wasn't published there. Unfortunately it doesn't really matter whether the "facts and quotes come from authoritative sources" if the source that published them is not a reliable one. However, if any of the sources you cited in the GoshTV source themselves gave an estimate (and are reliable sources), you could cite those sources on Wikipedia — but you could not put an estimate of the size of the crater into the Wikipedia article if it would be based solely on your extrapolation of information in such sources, because that would violate Wikipedia's policy forbidding original research. If you have published articles in reliable sources such as Popular Science before, perhaps you can get such a source to publish an article containing the estimate in question. Or perhaps you can't, and in that case it may be for a good reason; I don't know enough about that kind of science to judge, which is exactly why Wikipedia requires reliable sources.

As for the misunderstanding about what kind of "story" it was you had written, please bear in mind that everyone who answers questions at the Teahouse is a volunteer, and most of us have limited time. DES may have made a mistake — we all make mistakes sometimes — but was not under any obligation to click a link to something described as a "story" which might have been linked to at Wikipedia inappropriately in order to drive clicks (i.e., spam). The reliability of GoshTV as a source is possible to evaluate without reading any specific piece published there, in any case. I haven't checked the sources cited in the GoshTV article because I don't have time to, but the general advice I gave about them should apply both to your particular case and to similar cases other Teahouse visitors might wonder about — many new editors read questions and answers here as part of learning about editing Wikipedia.

If you do someday publish an article containing the estimate in a reliable source, you are more than welcome to follow the guidelines set out in WP:SELFCITE as Cullen328 suggested, and the estimate may be included on Wikipedia at that time. There is no deadline. If, however, reliable sources are not willing to publish the estimate, it's likely that would mean it would qualify as a fringe theory, and Wikipedia does not publish those. Thank you again for visiting the Teahouse, and don't hesitate to return with any more questions you have in the future. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 15:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually GrammarFascist Wikipedia DOES publish fringe theories in some cases but clearly identifies them as such. But the point is correct, Robin Rowe. It would be unlikely in your case. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There also comes into play WP:UNDUE - giving excessive weight to a single researcher's opinion when there is a vast multitude of potential experts on the subject. Does that single commentator on the subject represent a mainstream position or is it just one guy's guess? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that point for me, Vchimpanzee. You are correct that there are some fringe theories Wikipedia covers because such theories have had their notability established by coverage in reliable sources. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 23:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Uploading Figures

Hi

I can't get Wiki to upload some png files even although I have given permission to use the copyright. It keeps telling me that the files exist when they have not been uploaded. What is the best way to add them as they are best used as inserts. Thanks Bentley Doggy (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bentley Doggy: Try refreshing your browsing history. Otherwise this might be a browser issue or more simply an issue involving your CPU, please make sure these potential causes are diagnosed. If you still are having trouble maybe the village pump is the place to go. Hope that helps!

--Xavier (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bentley Doggy, welcome to the Teahouse. Please give the exact name of a file the software says exists but you don't think really exists. Edits at Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia are shown in different logs. Special:Contributions/Bentley Doggy shows no uploads here at the English Wikipedia but commons:Special:Contributions/Bentley Doggy shows one upload at Commons: commons:File:Figure 1 Illustrations of effectiveness.png. Is that it? Commons files can also be used in the English Wikipedia with exactly the same syntax. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

How to put an article to Sandbox

Hi there,

Hope you are fine. My user account is: Jimmycheung8

Can you please help? I am about to write my first article and put it on Wiki for the world to read. I believe it will be done but now I am at a loss.

How can I copy a word document with text and photos and URLs to Wiki? Should I do it in Sandbox or somewhere else?

Appreciate your help.

Regards, Jimmy

Jimmycheung8 (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jimmycheung8: Text may be copied and pasted, provided you own the copyright to it by opening your sandbox and copying and pasting.

Photos must be uploaded. There is a left hand margin option "Upload file" which allows it.

You place the pictures in the file by using the menus in the edit window.

You may need more than this basic help. First have a go, then come back and ask for the extra help you need, being as precise as possible. Fiddle Faddle 16:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jimmycheung8. I suggest that you read Your first article which has lots of useful information. You need to show that your topic is notable, as Wikipedia defines the term. Your article should summarize in your own words what reliable sources have said about the topic, and should include references to those sources.

Photos are tricky for new users, since Wikipedia is much stricter about copyright than many other websites. If you took the photo yourself, and it is of something that is not itself copyrighted, then it is probably OK. You need to freely license your photo for use by anyone. But if it is a photo you found on the internet, it is probably not OK. You can use any photo on Wikimedia Commons and there are many millions of them.

I suggest that you use the Articles for Creation process, so that your article can be reviewed by an experienced editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget the answers you received at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 402#Help me please, including about paid contributors and conflict of interest. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jimmycheung8. Fiddle Faddle says above "Text may be copied and pasted, provided you own the copyright to it". This is true, but with a condition. You must establish that the content has been freely licensed, so that anyone may reuse it, and that in fact you own the copyright, or that the owner has so licensed it. The procedure may be found at Donating Copyrighted Material, and you need to follow it if the content has previously been published, say on a web page. If it is just that you wrote the content in Word (or any other word processor) then simply copy text from the word processor to the edit box of your sandbox or whatever page you are trying to edit. However, be careful that special characters used by the word processor are properly converted. For example Wikipedia uses "straight quotes" not "typographic or curly quotes". It is often wise to copy to a plain text editor such as notepad first, and then go from there to Wikipedia. As explained above, images must be handled separately. DES ^(talk) 00:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Policy about future changes that are known? (eg. politicians who have won an election but not yet sworn in to their new role)

From time to time, announcements are made about changes that will occur in the future. For example, a politician may win an election, with their appointment to their role to occur many days or weeks in the future. Sometimes companies will announce mergers and acquisitions, and again, these events are only finalized many days or weeks after the announcement. In these situations, the relevant Wikipedia article could mention the situation in prose, but not as if the status quo exists no longer. For example, if Joe Sixpack wins the 2016 US Presidential Election, in December 2016, the article about the President of the United States may mention that Joe Sixpack will become the new president, however, the infobox will still have Obama listed as president. Unfortunately some editors edit articles as if the change has already occurred. Is there a Wikipedia policy that covers these situations? I know there is WP:CRYSTAL, however that policy seems to cover unverifiable speculation, whereas the scenarios I describe are verifiable, only that the change has not yet occurred.

Examples:

Recent edits to Activision Blizzard and King (company) following the mere announcement of a merger that will take place in the future.
Edits to Prime Minister of Australia after Turnbull was elected as the leader of his political party, but before he was officially sworn in as Prime Minister. Gfcvoice (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gfcvoice. The policy is Verifiability. Using the proper tense is part of verifiability. If reliable sources state that two companies will merge after various legal and financial formalities are completed, then we summarize that in the future tense. Once reliable sources say that the merger is complete, we can describe the new company in the present tense, and the merger process in the past tense. The same is true of politicians who are described as holding an office only after reliable sources report that they have been sworn in, not when TV networks project victory, or even when election results are certified. The previous office holder continues until the new person is sworn into office. The first place to try to resolve content disputes like this is the article talk pages. There is no such discussion on the company pages. On the Australian prime minister page, most editors commenting seem to agree with me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328. Yes I can see from the Verifiability policy "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", which I presume also extends to "the editor who incorrectly jumps the gun and talks about a change that will occur in the future, but has not yet occurred". Gfcvoice (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, they are incorrect as you stated, and you are correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all the above, and for my two cents I will suggest that sometimes you might also like to consider making it clear when particular information was current, if it is the sort of thing that is likely to change. There is even a template for this: {{as of}}. So you could say something like "As of December 2016, Joe Sixpack won the US Presidential Election and is awaiting inauguration." --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sharing custom Wiki skins

Is there a group or community where I can share and discuss custom Wiki skins? Xavier (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki skins? Do you mean Wikipedia:Signatures?--3 of ♦ _{I go}^first 22:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably WP:SKIN. ie: Vector, Monobook, etc RudolfRed (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Xavier. I don't know of anything directly meeting your criteria on Wikipedia. While you can customize your skin in various ways, AFAIK you can only choose from Monobook, Cologne Blue Modern and Vector as the base. There is mw:Skin projects but it looks like something that never took off at all. See also mw:Manual:Gallery of user styles, mw:Manual:Skinning/Archive, mw:Extension talk:MobileSkin. Or course there's lots of other wikis with discussion of skin customization that a simple Google search of <custom wiki skins> finds. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: I use personal CSS on my common.css page. Is my custom CSS not considered a skin?

--Xavier (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we're slightly bogged in terminology. I was saying our sandwich menu only offers ham & swiss, salami, PB&J or baloney but you can customize the fixings. Yes if you customize enough that that could be called a new skin (different sandwich). Anyway, I still know of no dedicated forum for sharing or your CSS tweaks. You might discuss issues at Wikipedia talk:Skin or Wikipedia talk:Customisation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Messed up redirect

Can someone fix the redirect so that a request for Burmese–Siamese War (1568–1569) leads to Burmese–Siamese War (1568-1569) instead of the Burmese–Siamese wars article?--Catlemur (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Catlemur. I am assuming the reason you did not fix this yourself is because you had trouble accessing the redirect – it's not uncommon. If I'm correct that that was the issue, when you attempt to navigate to a redirected title and are redirected, you will see at the top of the page you land on, just below the page's title, "(Redirected from Burmese–Siamese War (1568–1569))" Click on that linked (blue) text to access the redirect to edit it. By the way, I relocated your post to the top of the page, as this forum uses top posting. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that was very useful.--Catlemur (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Review tags on pages - how to remove after incorporating the suggestions

Hello, Waswo X. Waswo I had worked on this page and made changes as per the review template highlights. Had left a note to the editor who had made the review template - no response. Also had posted a comment in the talk page. How to further improve the article / get the feedback and remove the tags when the changes have been made !! Thank you Tirutirutiru (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Tirutirutiru, and welcome to the Teahouse. Any editor may remove such maintenance tags if s/he believes in good faith that the problem has been fixed, or did not apply. (If someone else disagrees and restores the tags, do not edit-war over it, but discuss on the article talk page.) If one is unsure, consulting a more experienced editor is a good idea, but it need not be the person who placed the tags. DES ^(talk) 13:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DESiegel !! Tirutirutiru (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Need Help Please

Hello, You contacted me about changes to the entry "The MacDuffie School" It is NOT a new article for creation/entry, it is an update since the school has gone through many changes, however the updated changes are not being allowed. Can you help with the editing since I'm new to this?
The update is in my sandbox: User:Mis.reid/sandbox
Do you need the sandbox article to be in a draft? I would like you to proofread it.
You state in your comments the rule, an account cannot be used by more than one person. I have no idea who the people are who are tied to the MacDuffie school account? A former student of the school had edited the entry maybe 10 years ago, but she is long gone. At this time, I would like the entry to have the correct and current information, not ancient history as the primary explanation.

Appreciate your help, Ms.ReidMis.reid (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse.. As was pointed out in the review of the sandbox draft, you shouldn't be writing a new article, but instead the existing article MacDuffie School should be improved. If you have a conflict of interest by being involved with the school, don't try to edit it yourself, but instead you should suggest improvements at Talk:MacDuffie School, supporting your suggestions by reference to published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where we care what third party, reliable sources have stated about the subject - not in providing a free webhost for the school's promotional materials. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Trying to figure out how to get my first page out of Drafts into the real world! ;)

Someone asked me for help creating a page about them. They have been published, received international awards and done multiple speaking engagements etc.

So I made them a page :)

I think it meets any/all requirements but certainly I could have missed something (my first one -- to be expected right?)

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

The page is: Draft:Anna Astvatsaturian Turcotte

Rstudner (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Rstudner: and welcome to the Teahouse!

I have added a template to the page so that when you are ready, you can click the green button to add the article to the review queue.

However, at this time, it appears that the article is not ready for "the real world" as it does not appear to meet the criteria for a stand alone article: that the subject of the article has received significant discussion, by people not related to the subject in reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight - such as academic journals, major newspapers or standard published books or magazines. Or see also the alternative criteria for writers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the template!

I guess I can't "make her more notable" by any actions of my own. She is a published author that has been to capital hill and spoken in front of the Armenian Caucus etc.

She has multiple mentions in newspapers (Armenian weekly etc) but of course not the new york times :)

(i'm not complaining hah -- just trying to help someone out of course). I'll talk to her and see if there are more references/sources and things that can link back to her etc.

Thanks for taking the time!

Rstudner (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the feedback from previous submissions, which you deleted a few days ago. Hence there is a "Resubmit" button, rather than the "Submit" button which TRPoD mentioned which would apply for a first submission. The feedback is there to help you and to help future reviewers. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

the Awards_and_decorations_of_Armenia#Mkhitar_Gosh_Medal might count - depending upon whether they are given out by the dozens or one a year. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

David - Ack! Sorry about that. I think i was unaware when I was asked to try to help that this whole process had been done a couple years ago etc etc and I was clicking out of confusion.

Definitely not my intention to scrub. Thanks for the feedback & restoring the old feedback. Much appreciated.

Rstudner (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm researching how common that medal is. I know a couple US poilticians have gotten them (Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Palo Alto) & Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles)). The President of Armenia has to specifically sign something according their countries law to award them etc.

“Pursuant to paragraph 16, article 55 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia awards these medals"

It is the highest civilian honor that can be bestowed etc.

Rstudner (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have emailed the Office of the President of Armenia (really hah) to see if I can get any statistics.

From what I can tell, is that it is "few" per year and almost everyone who gets them are politicians, heads of state or diplomats. Rstudner (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Difference between tools to help with bare URLs

Greetings, wise inhabitants of the Teahouse - I beg your indulgence with yet another dumb question. Some time ago, I found the wonderful RefLinks tool, which helped to take some of the grunt work out of filling in bare URLs. Then that was renamed/rewritten (I was never clear which) to ReFill, which I currently use. But I just found that there is another tool, which is once again called RefLinks. So now I am confused. Can anybody clarify the difference: is one tool preferred over the other, or are they suited to different situations? Gronk Oz (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Gronk Oz and welcome to the Teahouse. I like and use the current RefLinks. I haven't much used the ReFill tool. As I understand it they are fairly similar, but RefLinks handles a slightly greater range of cases. I will say that refLinks often stuffs information into the title= parameter that really should be in work= or at= or elsewhere, and it often fails to pick up publication dates. Using the reflinks output as a start, but then improving manually will give significantly better results, I think. But just using reflinks is much better than leaving bare URLs. DES ^(talk) 17:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DES.

Watchlist error?

I just added an article to my watchlist. The new item is listed for November the 3rd, but my time is actually a day before, November the 2nd. Wiki error, or am I just not understanding how Watchlists work? Xavier (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Times on your watchlist are GMT Thanks, Xavier. John from Idegon (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is Wikipedia time as indicated by my signatures stating the 3rd. This situation gets a little confusing for me since I mainly operate on a graveyard schedule.

Xavier (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Slightly more accurately, Wikipedia operates on Coordinated Universal Time, which is abbreviated UTC. You will see that abbreviation in the time stamps. So, it is already November 3 in London, but only 4:14 p.m. November 2 in California where I live. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood. When I worked graveyard, I had my watch set on Military time (24hr vs 12hr), because I could never remember which side of noon it was when I woke up. John from Idegon (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Xavier enc: You can set your time zone at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. It affects logs like those in watchlists, page histories and user contributions. Signatures will still be in UTC unless you also enable "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. If you have to mention times to others then please try to use UTC and not the time you see with your account settings. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Got it! Very well put! I will immediately change my time.--Xavier (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

new article - review criteria

I am submitting a new article for review and want to make sure it's in the best shape before I do. I have read all about creating a new article, writing objectively, and using reliable sources. Now, I would like to know about the review process. If my article gets denied, will I get the opportunity to make corrections and try again? Will the reviewers let me know what is necessary to get the article to meet Wikipedia standards?

Selenecjimenez (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Selenecjimenez, the answer to both questions is yes. Your article is very close to ready. If you know of any other mainstream sources such as newspapers and non-trade magazines, they could only help. If I were reviewing it, I'd most likely pass it, but it is better to err on the side of too much. Last thing you want is to have your article approved only to have it shortly nominated for deletion. Best luck, and good work! John from Idegon (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

should i edit or how to ask

Hi I wish to know if I see a fact wrongly written or I as a local do not agree in a article , how to rectify it ? should i edit it , or is there a way to discuss it ? I have read i should use the TALK page , but i do not know how to Arindra (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse @Arindra: !

Your recommended actions kind of depend on a lot of specifics. Is the content not appropriately sourced and potentially defamatory about a living person - if so remove it immediately. Does it have a source? then discuss it on the talk page. Do you have a source while the existing claim is unsourced? then be BOLD and fix the content and add a citation to validate the change. Are there multiple sources that disagree? then we present all major views, appropriately attributing them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Arindra, and welcome to the Teahouse.

In many cases the best option is to go to the Talk page and discuss with other users. You would begin a new discussion on a talk page by clicking the "New section" tab at the top of the page, entering a brief description of the issue in the "Subject/headline" field, and then explain why you think the fact currently stated in the article is wrong and should be changed, including any reliable sources you have to back up your version. To respond after someone else joins the discussion, you would click "edit" next to whatever name you gave the topic in the "Subject/headline" field, and add your comment beneath the other editor's, being sure to begin each of your paragraphs with one more colon : than they used (probably :: two for responding to the first person who replied) and also to sign your comment with ~~~~ four tildes.

If you're absolutely sure both that you have a reliable source (note that Wikipedia uses a specific definition of what makes a source reliable) and that changing what's in the article based on the source you have will be uncontroversial, you can go ahead and be bold and make the change directly in the article right away. But if another editor reverts (undoes) your edit right away, then you should go to the talk page and discuss the change there. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 18:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Generation Z

So I saw an infographic about the generation known as Generation Z instead being called "Centennials." It has specific birth dates for the generation. The infographic has plenty of information to flesh out a Wikipedia article. Nothing much would change, just titling it "Centennials", instead of Generation Z. So, who do I contact about whether or not it should be changed to Centennials?

Checked and Edited by Skeletonl234 (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Skeletonl234: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse!

Wikipedia articles are titled as the most commonly used and recognized names. So if you think the single infographic using that particular version of the name is the most representative, then you should go to the article talk page and begin a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion. It would likely be better to back your position by also bringing in a lot of other recently published scholarly journals etc. about the topic that use the name you are suggesting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll check that out.

Checked and Edited by Skeletonl234 (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleting a #redirect page

I stumbled on the Alon Waisman page while setting up a disambiguation page for the surname Waisman. If I correctly understand what happened, the single sentence that was the entire original content of the Alon Waisman page was merged into the page for radio station KFNX and then the page itself was turned into a redirect; but subsequently the reference to Waisman on the KFNX page was deleted as unimportant. (There is a comment to this effect on the KFNX Talk page.) So as things now stand there is no way for readers to know who Alon Waisman is (a radio dj) or why his page should redirect to KFNX—a pretty confusing situation! It seems to me that the Alon Waisman page should be deleted at this point since there was never enough content to support a stand-alone page, but I am not entirely clear on how merges work, so I don't know if this should just be nominated for deletion in the usual way. Suggestions? Alternatives?Alafarge (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alafarge: Thanks for stopping by and asking about this. I am going to go ahead and delete this, as your rationale makes good sense. We have a process called "speedy deletion" which is for when a deletion is so blatantly uncontroversial, it doesn't need discussions. There's a list of deletion rationales at WP:CSD: if you want to tag an article for speedy deletion, you would add the tag {{db-XX}} where db stands for "delete because" and "XX" is the speedy deletion rationale code; in this case I would have expected a tag {{db-g6}}. But I've gone ahead and deleted this one. --Jayron 32 16:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, this exactly answers my question for both the present situation and future ones.Alafarge (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32 and Alafarge: this created a copyright problem. Here it was easy to fix because there was only one user involved – so attribution could be provided by naming the contributor in the page history. This was far from an earth shattering copyright violation but please don't generalize from it; don't take this as what should have been done for "both the present situation and future ones". The default rule is that the source of merged content must never be deleted since the history of the source provides the attribution for all users involved in creating and altering the content placed in a new location. If it is deleted, copyright attribution must be provide in some other manner alongside that deletion (regardless of whether the current displayed content contains the merged material). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. How does this make a copyright violation when ordinary deleting of pages doesn't, e.g. through speedy deletion? And isn't there still a record of the page's former existence in the user's own contribution history?Alafarge (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alafarge: Deletion of a page deletes the content of the page which is not used elsewhere. Note here that I'm not talking about content removed from view in the current version but available in the page history; that's not what kind of "deletion" we're talking about. There's no need for attribution for content that is not on Wikipedia. Deletion of a page that had content that was merged elsewhere, on the other hand, means that if the source page no longer exists, there's no way to extract from the merge-to location's page history who contributed the content originally, and so copyright attribution has been severed. No, there is no record of the user's contribution that could be found because the deletion of the merge-from page deletes the contributions of all user's contributions there (only administrators and others with higher rights levels can see deleted edits). Let's attack this a different way (you might read this in conjunction with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Merging):

all content under our free copyright licenses (to the extent is copyrightable in the first place; some content will not meet the threshold of originality) requires copyright attribution to the specific users who contributed the material;
we (us contributors, personally, and not Wikipedia) own the copyright to what we contribute;
but the free copyright license we automatically give when contributing here, in an oversimplified nutshell, means that our content can be reused by anyone, even for commercial purposes, so long as they i) provide attribution to us copyright owners; and ii) provide the license any reuse is being made under;
we agree that the attribution portion of the license is satisfied by the indirect means of a link to the source page, where the list of contributors is available from its page history – but you can also provide even more direct attribution by naming the contributors of content when you use it elsewhere. However this is very unwieldy when there's numerous contributors that would have to be named;
when content is merged, or otherwise copied to a new location, minimum attribution is provided (typically) by stating in the edit summary what was done, and a wikilink to the source page where the content was contributed, as can be seen from that source page's page history;
however, if that source page is deleted, then that edit summary (here it stated "merging from Alon Waisman") will no longer allow the page history to be viewed to see who contributed what; clicking on that now red link to Alon Waisman would not allow non-admins to ferret out who wrote the content that was merged;
but this could and was easily fixed here by the note I left in the edit summary at KFNX, naming the actual and sole contributor of the merged content. But that was only easy here because only one person needed to be named. You can see how difficult this might be if that page had 1,000 edits by 100 different users.

Does that help?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Patrolling?

I got a message in my notifications box that I was "patrolled" by a user. What does this mean? Xavier (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Xavier enc: - it just means that an experienced editor with patrol rights took a quick look at the article and didn't find any overtly objectionable materials/content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! --Xavier (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)