Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 432

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 425←Archive 430Archive 431Archive 432Archive 433Archive 434Archive 435

requesting help with a draft article

I need some help with having someone read my draft article on Draketown Baptist Church. I am overwhelmed with all of this information and just don't see how to do it. Our community is lacking any kind of history resources for our kids to research. I would like to get some information out there. Help would be appreciated.

Draketown, Georgia (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Draketown, Georgia. I haven't looked at the draft, but from what you have said above, it does not sound suitable. Wikipedia is not, ever, for "getting some information out there", except maybe in the limited sense of presenting information which has been published only on paper available on the web. An article should contain no information whatever that has not already been published in reliable sources (and nearly all of it should have been published in sources unconnected with the subject). --ColinFine (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Draketown, Georgia. As much as it pains me to disagree with ColinFine, I think you have done quite a good job of finding references about the subject. I would suggest fleshing out the references with at least the title of the relevant articles: some of those scanned newspaper pages contain many small articles and it is not always obvious which one you are referring to. I did number 20 as an example. It is a pity the scan does not allow you to identify the date of the newspaper or the page number; it would be great to add those if possible.
I also suggest putting the article into a coherent structure. At the moment I can't tell whether it is all history, and if so does that mean that the place has closed, or is still operating. There is a section "Closing of the Institute" which says it closed in 1916, but later it talks about it operating in 1960 - confusing. How about having a single section on History, with sub-sections as appropriate in order, followed by other information only when it is notable. It may not be suitable to include things like "Other interesting notes". If they are notable then incorporate them into the relevant part of the article.
Also beware of overly promotional wording. Expressions like "It was a wonderful day in Draketown when the residents learned Draketown had been selected to receive one of the Baptist schools" or "To everyone's pride and joy, Draketown Baptist Institute opened its doors..." do not fit with the neutral tone expected in an encyclopaedia. It is fine to have a sense of local pride, but Wikipedia is not the proper place to show it. I hope this helps.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much Gronk Oz. I changed all of the references as you showed me. Thank you. That was a huge jump on my learning curve. I also made some changes to the subheadings and tried to wrap up the article to make it all make sense to the reader. Thank you for your time.
Draketown, Georgia (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that reads much more clearly to somebody like me who is coming into it cold. Well done, Draketown, Georgia. If I might be so bold as to offer another suggestion, the lead could be expanded a little to mention the Institute and its relationship to the church (it takes up half of the article, so probably should be mentioned in the lead). The aim of the lead section is to summarize the major points of the article, so if somebody is just going to read that one short section then they will get a reasonable idea of what the whole article is about. Then get one of your best grammar nazis to go through it and fix the wording ("have" should be "had" in the lead, "begun" should be "began" a couple of sentences later, etc.) Meanwhile, you might also like to consider where it could be cut down; there is some information there that is not directly related to the Church or the related Institute. One example I noticed is the section about "Successes to Graduate from the Draketown Baptist Institute" - it is common to list the notable graduates of an institute, but not to write essays about them. If they are truly notable, they should have their own article in Wikipedia. If not, why list them at all? Please take this in the spirit it is intended: I'm not criticizing, just suggesting ways to bring the article more into line with Wikipedia's way of doing things.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there.

I have a few questions

First being how do I get the image to work on tthis. It's the mobile game section. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_Nexo_Knights. In new at this wiki thing so not sure

Next is a question about this page.

I want to make a game info page for Lego nexo knight's. How do I go about this. Is there a page builder that can help me, I know a little about templates but not much.

Any help would be great.

One thing is on the game page I will be talk about one of the game features called nexo powers. There are 150 and each has a qr code like iten that the user scans. These are all unique and can normally only be obtained from real life figures. As such I have made replicas of the codes. Here is an example of them (unfinished). How do I go about using the images I make and upload them.

http://postimg.org/image/iy3yejm43/

Zycore (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Zycore. The gold standard for a Wikipedia article is that everything in it should be based on information published in reliable places by people who have no connection with it. Has there been such writing about the game? If not, then please don't bother - any article you create will not be accepted, because it will fail notability.
On the subject of the nexo powers: If there has not been independent writing about each of them, then again, don't. But in any case, even if it is indpeendently documented, such information would not in my opinion be encyclopaedic - Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. In addition, the images you are talking about are probably copyright, and may not be used in Wikipedia. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, i am a little confused, you say a game must have information published on it, the idea for creating the page came from a wide range of other game info pages already on wiki, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clumsy_Ninja , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Birds_Go! , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Birds_2 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_Monkeys , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Taxi and so on. it would be the same as them. if i am misreading you statment them please correct me, as for the copyrighted images, the angry bird pages and the crazy taxi ones for example are using official game images, from the google play store, or Ios App store. these are [ress release images just like the one i am suggesting.

Thank you for responding, hope i am not misunderstanding. Zycore (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Zycore. I haven't looked at those other articles, but just because they exist doesn't mean that they should exist: we have over five million articles, and quite a lot of them are substandard. However, the Angry Birds series are well enough known that I would think that there probably were several in-depth reviews published in reliable places to establish notability.
As for the images - yes, I glossed over the detail. It is permissible in some circumstances to use non-free images, provided that all the criteria in the non-free content criteria are met. This would quite likely allow you to use the cover art, or maybe one screenshot from the game in an article, but I'm sure it wouldn't allow many copyright images of individual powers. --ColinFine (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Zycore. Your initial comment reads like you are planning to write a game guide. Please be aware that Wikipedia does not publish game guides. We do accept neutral well-referenced articles about notable video games, which summarize what reliable sources say. Angry Birds Go!, for example, has 15 references. For guidance on writing an article, please read Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Major rewrite as draft?

Hi, when submitting a major change to a wikipedia article am I supposed to edit the article directly. I thought that was the point of a draft, but it gets automatically rejected because the article already exists. I see the point that this avoids getting multiple non-sequential edits, but it seems that there should be a different process for a major rewrite. Thanks Mattheworlando (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is Draft:Multi-task learning. No, the purpose of a draft is not for a major rework to an article. It is for a new article. A major rework of an article cannot be accepted as replacing it because that would erase the old history of the article. In a few case a history merge can be done, but it is much preferred that you discuss your proposed improvements on the article talk page, and then, if other editors agree, or don't disagree, edit the article. If other editors disagree, then read the dispute resolution policy and follow one of the methods of resolving content disputes (the first of which is discussion on the talk page). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I am asking on behalf of a number of others who are editing Wikipedia as a class assignment. What I am surmising is the best policy is to write a draft and post a link to the draft in the article talk page. Then if other editors like the draft, replace the article as a single edit. Not sure if that's exactly protocol, but it seems to be the solution in this case. Mattheworlando (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts, Mattheworlando: A major rewrite of an existing article should be completed in a long series of discrete chunks of work, rather than wiping out old work and replacing it with new work. If you (one person) are drafting an all new paragraph or section, that can be drafted in a sandbox and copied and pasted into the article when ready. The method you propose may be perceived by others as an unintended insult, in the form of "your old work is worthless and my new work is far superior". I am sure that is not the impression you want to convey. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is that there are a number of articles that have received major rewrites as part of the course I mentioned and need to be submitted somehow. I think that the protocol I suggested above will solve that problem. (With regard to the specifics of the article I edited, the original was almost entirely copied and pasted wholesale from other sources. So I am not sure that those editors have a huge stake in it. By the way, in my case I did preserve structure and content from the previous article. )

Second I think the lack of a rewrite mechanism is a bottleneck to improvement in Wikipedia. Sometimes the best way to achieve progress is not through incremental changes. In CS terms, greedy algorithms often get stuck at local minima. Just my thoughts... Mattheworlando (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a well-established rewrite mechanism that has enabled us to grow to 5 million encyclopedia articles, and improve constantly, Mattheworlando. It is called the edit button. Click it on any article, and revise, rewite, expand or add references, as you see fit, in compliance with our policies and guidelines. This is a collaborative project, and you should build off the base that previous editors, volunteering in good faith, have established. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I see no discussion at Talk:Multi-task learning, which is the proper venue for detailed discussion of any shortcomings of that article, and plans to improve it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen (or others who may be in a more helpful mood) I'm obviously here asking for guidance, given the unique situation. I haven't touched the original article since I wanted feedback from this forum first. 1000's of hours have already been donated to improve articles through this class assignment. We're trying to figure out how to submit them. I proposed a mechanism above, but I perceive that it has been received with negative feedback.

I already explained that this was undertaken as part of a course, and so to receive credit the editing had to be done single-handedly _until_ the draft is submitted for collaborative review. Again, the reason why I ask the question here is that I would like to do this respectfully, obviously, and this is a unique situation.

Unless you are a Wikipedia insider, it is not clear exactly what happens when a draft is submitted, and I am glad to have that cleared up. But another issue is that it is arduous to submit a major rewrite through the edit button especially for Tex heavy articles, and it seems there should be an intermediary place to draft new text. Cullen seems already to have agreed that drafting in a sandbox is the correct protocol for that, and I am taking this one tiny step further for the rewrites that, I again emphasize, have _already_ been completed. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattheworlando (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to be as helpful as possible, Mattheworlando, and explain to you how things work here. The Articles for Creation process is for evaluating drafts of new articles about discrete topics currently lacking articles. Any experienced AFC reviewer who sees a draft about a topic for which an article already exists will decline the draft without even looking closely, and advise you (and the other students in your class) to go edit the existing article. That is a strongly ingrained cultural norm among experienced editors. We do not remove and replace existing articles. Instead, we revise, expand and improve existing articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Mattheworlando: from what you have said, you are unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, but have had the sense to ask about it, and in the right place. You should be commended for this. I wish I could be as positive about your course supervisor. Maproom (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mattheworlando. I've asked about your problem at the Wikipedia Education Noticeboard. Maybe they have had experience with this. We welcome class projects here, but prefer that they go through the Wikipedia:Education program which provides training for both instructors and students before they start editing Wikipedia. In your particular case I have a suggestion. You copied the article over, then made changes. From that history, [this "diff" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Multi-task_learning&diff=cur&oldid=694100449] shows exactly what you changed (though it doesn't recognize offsets very well). Use that to copy your changes into the article a few at a time rather than just replacing the whole article. That step by step process makes it easier for other editors watching the article to see how the changes developed. You have made a great improvement to the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Two Observations

I have a few comments on two matters.

Class Assignments

First, the original poster states that they are asking on behalf of a number of editors who have been editing Wikipedia as a class project. It is my observation that, at least this semester, there have been numerous class assignments to edit Wikipedia by instructors who may themselves not understand how Wikipedia works. In some cases, the instructor wants to grade the project after the article is accepted into mainspace, which puts the student in a very awkward position between their own need to have the article accepted into mainspace, and the AFC reviewers, who perform an important unpaid service in applying the standards of Wikipedia. I sympathize with those students, but the problem often seems to be instructors giving Wikipedia assignments without understanding much about Wikipedia. I think that is what User:Maproom means by: "I wish I could be as positive about your course supervisor." The answer isn’t to change Wikipedia, but for the instructors to educate themselves about the details of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. This may not address the original poster’s comments and suggestions, but it is a comment on a problem with class assignments. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft Space for Rewrite of Articles

The original poster suggests that draft space be available for wholesale rewrite of articles. That isn’t how draft space is currently used. However, I am willing to propose an idea that may address the original poster’s concerns and be more consistent with how Wikipedia works. At present draft space is used for drafts of new articles, via the AFC process, and the role of the AFC reviewer is to consider whether a draft is appropriate for the encyclopedia, not which of two versions of an article is better. (The AFC reviewer considers, among other things, whether the draft, if accepted, is likely to be nominated for AFD. A draft that is likely to be nominated for AFD will not be accepted.) However, I would add that there is, in my view, a way that draft space could be used for a wholesale rewrite. That is to develop the rewrite, but, rather than submitting the draft to AFC, submit a Request for Comments on the article talk page asking whether to replace the existing article with the draft. Rather than basing the replace decision on the judgment of one reviewer, that would obtain consensus from the community. However, the use of draft space to develop an alternate version of an article should be preceded by discussion on the original article’s talk page. As noted, there was no discussion of why Multi-task learning needed improvement. Indeed, there is no discussion of anything on Talk: Multi-task learning. What does the original poster think of this restated concept? What do other experienced editors think of this concept? If there is agreement that this may sometimes be appropriate, the Idea lab might be a place to work it out further. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Robert, I think we are on the same page. You suggestion seems consistent with my second post above. I think given the circumstances this gives a path forward to take advantage of the effort put into the article rewrites, while not being at odds with the collaborative culture of Wikipedia. Mattheworlando (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Wholesale replacement of existing articles (with the possible exception of very short stubs) by drafts is simply unacceptable - the rewrite/expansion of an existing article must happen directly on the article page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean that wholesale replacement of existing articles by draft is simply unacceptable under existing policy, or that there is an essential reason why that policy must stand and cannot be changed? It is true that policy does not currently permit replacement of articles by drafts. However, is there a reason why this rule must be absolute and why any change to it must be discounted? Some editors have proposed changes to the policy. Is there a reason why proposing the change to the policy is absurd, or is it simply that we have always done it this way? If discussion is worth continuing, we should go to the Idea lab, because otherwise this Teahouse discussion is likely to be archived. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I dunno - I think that with students it'd be best for them to work on a draft or userspace article rather than make direct edits. I think that a good way to go about this would be to have them work on the draft article and at some point (preferably during the construction of the draft article so they can get feedback) they post on the article's talk page to let people know that they would like to merge some of the information over. It's then decided what, if anything, should be brought over and if so, should anything be re-written. In other words, there's no deletion of the old page and it'd be expected that any information deemed acceptable for the main article would be cut/pasted from the draft version, ideally by the specific student editor that created the page. Basically, just use the draft/userspace as a sandbox for the real deal. Student editors are extremely prone to writing an article like a research paper, meaning that the article will have tones and OR that would make it seem like an essay. It's never done on purpose, just that this is how they're used to writing. Ideally yes, this would all take place in the live article, but I think that allowing some slack by letting a group of students work on a sandbox version of the article would be fine. I'd prefer that they make it via someone's sandbox, preferably the teacher's, if the assignment is only for one page, since draftspace is meant to be a place where we make new articles, not new additions to articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent discussion at the Education noticeboard

Please see this recent extensive discussion where issues such as this were discussed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC) How do i insert the text box on the right hand side for the candidate pls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chibuzoreferebo (talk • contribs) 09:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

How to be sure the file will NOT be deleted if it is nominated for deletion?

The file was nominated for deletion in commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Man with a full chest tattoo. Le Petit Prince, Yuri Gararin, Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. Space background. Color.jpg

Questions:

  • What is the procedure to explain that this nomination is wrong? What happens if nominator just does not anwer to the questions in the nominations page or does not provide any reaction to the explanations why nomination is wrong?
  • How can I "ping" the user? I am getting sometimes notifications from my Talk page. If I edit user's Talk page, does he/she receieves notification? Sometimes people just don't react to the mofications of their Talk pages. Is there a way to be sure the user really READ your statement?
  • How to provide consent of the creator of art object (in this specific case, tattoist) to use the image of art in Wikimedia Commons (under free license)? He is OK with this but how shall he let it be known?

Vitaly Repin (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Vitaly repin. Commons is a different project from Wikipedia, and really you should be asking that at c:Commons:Help Desk. But I'll answer as best I can.
  • The procedure to contest the nomination is to add to the nomination page (as you have) with arguments based on Commons' policies. It is not a vote, and asserting "The nomination is wrong" is not an effective way of arguing.
  • The user is a Commons user - they may or may not be a Wikipedia user as well; but you should notify them in Commons, or edit their User Talk page on Commons. I don't know whether @ or the templates 'ping' or 'U' exist in Commons or not.
  • If the tattooist is willing to release the work under a suitable Creative commons licence (which will let anybody use or modify it for any purpose) he should follow the procedure in donating copyright materials.
And you cannot "be sure the file will NOT be deleted"; you can only argue for that, but the end result is determined by consensus, not by you. --ColinFine (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Also asked in Commons project Vitaly Repin (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Images on sidebar of SE

Good afternoon, Wikipedians I just want to display some more images on search engines side bar, how could that be possible. because at the moment just 1 photo is on the display. As other articles have multiple images, is there any procedure on displaying multiple images in search engine sidebar. The article i'm trying to work is of Arpan Thapa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpan_Thapa) who is the actor from Nepal. Hope some great comments from all of you,

Thank you,

AkhilThakuri (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Good morning to you AkhilThakuri from the other side of the world. :) The box you are talking about is not what is usually called a search engine sidebar, although it is in the same place on the page that most SE sidebars are. The box is called a Template:Infobox, it is a sort of summery of the facts in the article. The infobox at Arpan Thapa is a Template:Infobox person which is designed to contain only one image. I guess the other articles with multiple pictures you have seen are those of cities like Gothenburg or perhaps groups of people such as Danes. Those templates allow for multiple pics or collages, but such should not be used in the infobox you are talking about. If you want more pics in the article, they should be in the text area. This particular article is rather short, so one picture is enough in it for now. If you can add some more, sourced, text though, more pics could be added. There should always be a good balance between the amount of text and the number of pictures. Best, w.carter-Talk 08:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
@AkhilThakuri: Are you referring to a photo shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. All images are selected by Google whether they are from Wikipedia or elsewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

New Facts & Concepts

I am writing and editing my first entry and it has been "rejected at this time". The reason is insufficient published material and probably incorrect formatted of citations. The problem is that the subject matter has only recently emerged as fact and not many have written on the topic yet. So, it is a really important point of fact, but not yet reviewed in detail by many writers. I suppose its like saying "there are speed-boats", but because not many have written above them, it can't be entered in Wiki!!

So I am stuck with a problem, trying to describe a massively important topic, but having only a few citations. It is very frustrating because new concepts can be just as important, as the old ones. What should I do? Help appreciated at Lifeism page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lifeism Kaetalist (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kaetalist. Please read the explanation of notability. Wikipedia makes no judgment on what is important (or famous, significant, popular, or influential). It has the practical concern that an article with no independent reliable published sources is of very little value, because a reader has no way to verify the content. Remember that anybody can edit Wikipedia: an article may have been changed by mistake, or under a conviction that the details are wrong, or even by vandalism, and if there are no references, a reader cannot determine its reliability. (The relevant concept is verifiability. So until there has been substantial indpendent material about a subject, it is impossible to write an acceptable article about it. Your problem has no solution at present, except leaving it and working on something different for the moment. --ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Colin colinfine. Thank you for your reply and I will read the suggested explanation. I understand that WIKI makes no judgments, but its editors do and they are clearly not as independent as they claim. Consequently the agility of WIKI is being compromised, because demanding a large reference base takes time and therefore WIKI is being left stuck firmly years in the past behind current knowledge (even though it was actually WIKI that prompted me to write this concept up as a new page). I understand about security and accuracy, but I am a scientist myself and I am as rigorous as whoever. There is a solution, I will work harder to find the necessary references, as required by WIKI's gatekeepers, but you can be sure that the principle references (Gyerek and Marsella both cited from published books) are both robust and valid. The other uses also are from verifiable sources. So this is frustrating, as the information is true (as from the source) and also because I have read many articles on WIKI with far less verification/references than the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lifeism article that I am editing.
Hello again, Kaetalist. "Agility" is not one of the goals of Wikipedia: There is no deadline. If Gyerek and Marsella are the originators of lifeism, then their own publications are not independent of it, and do not contribute to its notability (and should not form the majority of the references in the article). Only when other, independent, writers have found it noteworthy chosen to publish about it (and not just referencing it in their own further work, but actually discussing the concept) does Wikipedia regard it as a suitable topic.
You are clearly a strong advocate for this concept, Kaetalist; and that is to be applauded. But Wikipedia is not the place to be a strong advocate for anything: that is called promotion and is not acceptable. Wikipedia is for summarising material already out there by people not directly connected with the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
As for Wikipedia "being left stuck firmly years in the past behind current knowledge", that is sort of inherent in the nature of encyclopedias, which have never been the place where original research is published. They are tertiary sources and therefore inevitably behind primary and secondary sources when it comes to new knowledge. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

How to add a company logo?

Please help me to add the company logo to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings First I added it as a free file and it has been deleted because of copyrights violation. Then I readded it as non-free (with the same file name), but it has not been visible in the article. And later has been deleted as unused. What should I do to add the logo? Besprincipniy (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Besprincipniy. The logo is in the article. A much more serious problem, though, is that the article is full of promotional and advertising language. It must be rewritten from the neutral point of view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Russian cuisine

The bottom of this page has blue bars which are like categories.

Russia articles Russian soups, European cuisine, Asian cuisine, Cuisines.

And below that,

Authority control LCCN: sh85031894 SUDOC: 027918831 BNF: cb11985807b (data) NDL: 00569757

Eden's Apple (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Those bars are navigation templates, Eden's Apple. Do you have a question about them? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
How are they created and where are they listed? As I know the list of userboxes used in user pages.Eden's Apple (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether there is a list of them anywhere, but someone else might be able to help with that. The easiest way to create one is probably by using Template:Navbox. Rather than adding that template to the bottom of a page, you need to create a new page for the template, starting with the prefix "Template:". Cordless Larry (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Eden's Apple, the "list" is at Category:Navigational boxes. If you are looking for a group of "things" here on the WP, an easy way is to try putting "Category:Whatever you are looking for" in the general search box at the top right-hand corner of the page and see if you get a result. You usually do. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 11:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Eden's Apple. Authority control is an aspect of library science that involves assigning a unique identifying number to a discrete topic. There are several systems used worldwide, which is why you see several code numbers. Please read WP:Authority control for a full explanation of that aspect of your question. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The image of Roland Barrera claims that it is his own work, which is obviously not correct - it is not a selfie. So somewhere, a photographer is being denied due credit. I have been searching through the COPYVIO documentation, but I cannot see where I should report this.Gronk Oz (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz. The image is being hosted on the Wikimedia Commons, which has separate deletion processes. It is still possible that Barrera owns the copyright for the image if he posed and used a self-timer—but I agree with you that this does seem questionable. The primary issue I see, rather, is a lack of permission. There is no evidence that the uploader, RollBarr, really is Mr. Barrera and has the authority to release the image under the specified free license. The easiest way to resolve this is to add the template {{subst:npd}} to the top of the file's description page, as I have done here. Then, notify the uploader using the code in that template, and after a seven-day grace period, if the uploader has not responded, the image will be deleted. All of the methods through which media can be deleted—including for questionable copyright statuses—are described at the Common's deletion policy. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Hope this helps, Mz7 (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly what I needed - thanks, Mz7.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: You're welcome! Happy holidays, Mz7 (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Once using the linkclassifier tool, any links which are redirects, disambiguations, etc., are coloured differently to discern them—also coloured are links in the Spoken articles category. I would like also to color links in the Living people category. I asked the creator of the tool, Anomie, for help trying to achieve this, although I did not get a clear response from him. Please help. Thanks. Neve-selbert 00:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Neve-selbert hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Perhaps WP:VPT could help.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

Having spent a number of hours meticulously creating my first page I received a first publish decline. I addressed the issue and attempted a second publish. I received another decline, something to do with not copying pasting which I don't quite understand because the source was genuine and a valid reference. Then without warning the page has been deleted on copyright grounds. It's an article about a tribute band. There are many articles about tribute bands. I've contested the deletion as directed. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Article was called UK Foo Fighters Easy For You To Say (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Read the policy on copyright violations. Also read the guideline that other stuff exists. Just because one tribute band is notable doesn't mean that another tribute band is notable. In any case, do not copy and paste copyrighted material. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Easy For You To Say, the issue about "copy and paste" is so serious that it is one of the few cases that will cause an article to be removed immediately. It is not a question of the source being genuine or valid; it is about the fact that somebody else owns the copyright to that material so Wikipedia cannot copy it. The link that Robert provided about copyright violation is really worth reading. Basically, the editor (you or me) must say things in our own words, not copy another writer's work.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I am a new user on Wiki. How do I reinstate the draft article to continue my work before attempting to publish again? This article made it on Wiki... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Australian_Pink_Floyd_Show Easy For You To Say (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
You are asking the wrong question. You may not reinstate a draft article that contains copyright violation. You may write a new draft of the article in your own words. It is true that many inexperienced editors think that it is all right to copy and paste material from an organization's own web site. That doesn't mean that it is all right to copy and paste material from an organization's own web site. You cannot reinstate a draft article that contains copyright violation. Start over. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Easy For You To Say, it is also true that an organization's own web site rarely has the neutral point of view required in articles. They could give permission, which is very complicated, but there would be little point and rewording is the best option.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Which page issue templates for Painstake article?

There are citation issues in the Painstake article, and I added a template but I'm not sure I used the right one. Initially I used "no footnotes" because there are references at the bottom but the article never cites them inline. Then I noticed the Infobox cites them so I changed it to "refimprove". Is that the appropriate template when the Infobox had citations but the rest of the article is completely unreferenced?

1 of the 3 references is problematic as well: It links to the main page of a website called allmusic.com when it should link to a specific content about the band. The second link is the band's own MySpace page, but that is not a big problem as far as I can see because it is only used as a source for the genres the band plays. Does the article need additional page issues templates in your opinion? I'm using this as a learning tool for other articles. (I only edit for 10-20 min on a phone, so I am unable to find and sources myself.)

Unrelated but important: Did I post my question right? I know it is meant to be posted on top the page, I don't know if this was the way to do it. (I edited the top section in the page -the question right below mine) Bob the Inept (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bob, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question here was asked just fine, although in general I recommend using the big blue "Ask a question" link in the page's header - this is because it allows other people to edit different sections of the page while you are entering your question, without over-writing one another's changes (ask me how I found out about that if you want the embarrassing story, though you can probably guess it!) Your tagging on that article looks right to me: the article definitely needs more good references (hence the {{refimprove}} tag) and it needs those to be cited in the body of the article (hence the {{more footnotes}} tag). I did make a slight change by moving the {{more footnotes}} tag to relate to the whole article, rather than just the History section. Oh, I also tagged the allmusic reference as a dead link. So you have done well; keep up the good work!--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Gronk Oz! I didn't know about the dead link tag. I also forgot about the tag I put on the History section -I hadn't seen any effect on the article after I added it.
I used the ask a question link before, but Cordless Larry had to move it to the top of the page. Is there a third, even better way that I'm missing? Bob the Inept (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
That must be a bug, Bob - the "Ask a question" link is meant to put the new question at the top. It might be something to do with your computer configuration: what are you using, and what browser?--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Gronk Oz. I'm using the Android Wikipedia app. Next time I'll try the Safari browser on Android to see if that places questions bettet. Bob the Inept (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Advice on reversion

I am having exactly the same problem - the ask question link is dead. Here is my question, I would be very grateful for an answer: Dear Teahouse, I was looking through an an article with some unsourced information, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Henry_Somerset so I added 'citation needed'. An editor immediately undid this and it appears that this editor put this information in place and wrote most of the article. How can I ask this editor to check her sources as I cannot find this information in the source listed? I do not want to get into an 'Undo Revision' argument - it is only a small point to be honest, but these Wikipedia articles do belong to everyone. Thanks, (Paul H Andrews II (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)) [Moved to question page by : Noyster (talk), 16:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)]

Hello Paul H Andrews II and I appreciate your concern to not start an "edit war". My suggestion is to start a section on the article talk page to explain the concern. Then any editor with an interest in the article may respond, but to ensure that your post comes to the attention of the editor who reverted you, you may wish to include a notification or "ping" in your post, in just the way I did at the start of this reply. Other ways people may run a discussion are via edit summaries or via posts direct to the other editor's user talk page, but the article talk page is there for the purpose of discussing article content and that is what we recommend: Noyster (talk), 16:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, Paul H Andrews II. To the excellent advice given by Noyster, I would just add the following. If you engage the other editor in a conversation, and they say that the content is in the source, and you continue to feel that it is not, there are places you can go to get more input. The reliable sources noticeboard, dispute resolution noticeboard, and third opinion noticeboard are all excellent options. Once again, thanks for not blindly reverting. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed template

How do I replace the citation needed template with a source? I tried to delete it and then just rewrite the whole sentence, but the template won't go away. Thanks~~ ^^ Liveorganic1 (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't seem to find the problem you are talking about. Can you give an example of an article where this happened? Thanks Happy Squirrel (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
@Liveorganic1: You appear to mostly use VisualEditor. I don't use it but tried it now and couldn't find a way to remove a template with it. If you click "Edit source" instead then you can remove the code for the template. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very muchPrimeHunter (talk). And to Happy Squirrel (talk) thanks for looking into it; btw the article I tried to do this on was "sejong the great" achievements section although the problem's solved now. :) Contrary to appearance sometimes edit source seems to be the easier option.. Liveorganic1 (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Liveorganic1, to expand just a little on the previous answers; for editing things other than bare text, editing source is in generall a safer option. There are a number of things visual editor can do, and a number that it cannot; the full list is at Wikipedia:VisualEditor. I hope that helps. If you're new to the markup text, then visual editor can certainly be helpful. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

hello,

please could you let me know If there is an existing list of articles that's been suggested for improvement, or a list of possible article that could be created by editors? Happy Holidays & best regards. XXample ~ Let's Chat 15:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Another place is to look through the WP:WikiProject Directory and find a project that interests you. Most will have a list of articles for improvement. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 18:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone help me get my article approved?

Hi I tried to get create an article about a radio presenter who dose a lot of work on the LGBT Scene to help with HIV Charities etc but I don't really understand the creation process. Can someone help me please? RichardPaulReynolds (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RichardPaulReynolds. The first issue you need to deal with is whether or not Mark Scott is notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. You need to show that he has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. His own social media presence does not count, and neither does anything produced by Gaydio, since none of that is independent coverage. I did a Google News search for "mark scott gaydio", and all I came up with was this item in the Grimsby Telegraph, which is just a photo of him on stage. So, your challenge is to find the sources that show he is notable. Please read Your first article for more information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

can I create a page for individual playmates?

Can I create pages for individual playmates?Mr. Ice Buckett (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Ice Buckett. What do you mean by a playmate? The subject of a Wikipedia article must have been written about, at length, in reliable published sources (such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers). See WP:42 and Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean your own playmates, or you mean Playboy Playmates? The latter are, by virtue of publication in a magazine of large circulation, almost always notable. If you mean that you want to do your own playmating service to compete with the soft-core porn magazines, you will first have to have your own magazine with a real circulation. If you mean centerfold models, then the only real issue is that the centerfolds are themselves copyrighted and cannot be published in Wikipedia, but information on the models is almost certainly worth of articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I want make me gallery, but my doesn't work. My always went photos down, but not to the right. How to do that normally go? Give him maybe an example? --L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 14:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 14:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lukaslt13. Help:Gallery tag has examples of one of the ways to make an image gallery. If you post your attempted code or a link to it then we can see what the problem is. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Formatting error

Hi. I recently created several stub articles about populated places in Arizona. I simply used the template of other pages I had created previously. However, on these most recent ones, such as Alma Gardens, Arizona, left an arbitrary "Insert non-formatted text here" message after the reference section. I can't figure out what the hell I did incorrectly. Any ideas? Onel5969 TT me 16:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

In this edit to Template:Maricopa County, Arizona you accidentally added that text to the top of the template; not entirely sure how, but I've now removed it :) Sam Walton (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Samwalton9 - it was driving me crazy! It probably occurred when I copied the article title to past into the template, and I accidently didn't copy "cleanly", and caught that additional text. Really appreciate you taking the time to figure it out. Onel5969 TT me 16:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Can I put lyrics in a song article??

Please tell me if I can, and about the 'tags' and other citations to do this. I really want to put the lyrics in my favorite song articles!!!113.193.137.107 (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia is not a lyrics website, and therefore we refrain from posting these on song articles. Please read WP:NOTLYRICS.

Kindest regards and happy editing!

Chesnaught555 (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Not only is Wikipedia not a lyrics web site, but the legality of lyrics web sites is questionable. Song lyrics are almost always copyrighted, and their addition of Wikipedia is copyright violation. While some singer-songwriters don't object to the piracy of their lyrics, because it publicizes their songs, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously (and isn't used commercially). Lyrics on web sites are likely to be redacted, to result in speedy-deletion of the web page, or, if persistent, to result in users being blocked from editing. So don't post lyrics. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

My user profile has been nominated for speedy deletion

How can a user page and talk page be nominated for speedy deletion? Isn't it up to each user to determine what is on their page? As long is there isn't anything inappropriate on the page I don't see how wikipedia can justifably erase my user page. I'm a newbie and am not sure how things work yet and I've made a few mistakes however I don't think this warrants deletion. Please explain your reasoning behind this.Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Notgoingtotellyou. I may be missing something, but I can't see any evidence that either your user page or your talk page has ever been nominated for speedy deletion. But the way, Wikipedia does not contain any "user profiles": that's not what we do here. --ColinFine (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Notgoingtotellyou, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't see signs that User:Notgoingtotellyou or User talk:Notgoingtotellyou have been nominated for deletion. Does the username mean that you created a new account and aren't going to tell which pages it's really about? If so then I can only refer to the general guideline Wikipedia:User pages. It mentions several things users may not have on their user pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I forgot to mention that it is a commons user profile :-( Sorry about the mistake but could you help with that since their helpers usually take much longer to respond to inquiriesNotgoingtotellyou (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Notgoingtotellyou: This is a place to learn about editing Wikipedia. Each wiki has its own policies. commons:User:Notgoingtotellyou was not deleted by Wikipedia but by Commons which is a separate wiki. The stated reason is "Out of Project scope", linking to a Commons policy. Deleted Commons pages can only be seen by Commons administrators so I cannot comment on the former contents. commons:User talk:Notgoingtotellyou has not been nominated for deletion but contains messages about files nominated for deletion. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@Notgoingtotellyou: Judging from your comment here I would guess that your Commons user page was deleted because it contained links to copyright violations on your Google drive account. English Wikipedia does not allow links to copyright violations, and Commons probably has a similar policy. —teb728 t c 19:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys! Where can I learn Wiki programming?

Hi guys! Where can I learn Wiki programming? I mean all key words like link and so on. Minacriss1 (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Minacriss1! If you're looking for information about how to use wiki markup (the source code), Help:Wiki markup may be of interest. If you just want a more basic overview of Wikipedia, you may want to see Wikipedia:Tutorial (or Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure, if you're more into games). If you wanted to learn the terminology used on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Glossary may be helpful.
I also noticed that an article you created, F.C.E. 365 Firmware Manager, appears to have been based off of this article from the iPhone Wiki. It seems like the iPhone Wiki uses MediaWiki, the same software that Wikipedia runs on; so if you're familiar with editing that site, you should be fine here as the wiki markup should pretty much work the same way.
Hope this helps, and I'm sorry if I've interpreted your question incorrectly. CabbagePotato (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Is there a difference between wiki markup and wiki text? --Binaryhazard (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Binaryhazard. According to Help:Wiki markup, those two terms should be referring to the same thing, so I suppose the answer is no. CabbagePotato (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate any thoughts on whether the article they are editing F.C.E. 365 Firmware Manager's references are acceptable namely "theiphonewiki.com" [1] A "forum" [2] and a "Twitter post" [3] the user is edit warring to include them. Theroadislong (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Theroadislong. IMO those are all WP:USERGENERATED items and are WP:NOT acceptable as references. You can ask for more input at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard MarnetteD|Talk 22:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

citation section heading.

Is there a standard for the section name containing citations. In most articles, it seems to be References. But sometimes, reflist is put in a Notes section. Recently, I renamed Notes to References in Martyrium (architecture) but it was undone. MB (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MB. We allow variations in citation methods, and WP:CITEVAR advises, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." Although I also prefer "References" to "Notes" in such cases, both are allowed so I suggest working on something else. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@MB: There was already a "References" heading when you added a second in [4]. There should never be two. If there are separate sections for inline references/notes and for general references, the former is usually called "Notes" and the latter "References". See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and references. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, MB. Looks like the problem at Martyrium (architecture) is that two different referencing styles are mixed. Within an article, the referencing style should be consistent to avid confusion. Solution one is to put all of the references in a References or Sources section and then use short citations throughout the article. An easier solution, since there are only four sources cited, is to name the Syndicus book using a full citation the first time that it appears, then <ref name=citation-name />. Use {{rp}} to specify pages if you prefer but since all are within the same contiguous page range, that isn't essential. In either case, add OCLC: 1414394 and (Translated from the German by J.R. Foster) to complete the source's information. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 01:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Park Cho-rong

I reviewed Draft:Park Cho-rong, and neither accepted nor declined it, but commented that Park Cho-rong already exists as a redirect to Apink, the girl group of which she is the leader. I was then asked by User:AlofVar what to do next. In order to accept the draft, what needs to be done? Should an administrator be asked to move the draft over the redirect? I am aware that the draft can be copied and pasted over the redirect, but is that permitted? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon - and first, thanks for all your efforts at AfC. Now, about your question. I usually leave a comment on the draft that there is a redirect which exists which prevents the draft from being moved to mainspace, and that I intend to move it to the mainspace as soon as the redirect is deleted. I then go to the redirect and request a CSD, using the housekeeping category (I forget which h# it is, but if you look, you'll find it). Then it asks you for a reason, and I simply say "to make room for a move from AfC". I then watchlist the redirect, and when I see that it's been deleted, I go back and accept the draft. Hope that makes sense. Onel5969 TT me 02:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
After posting the question I realized that doing a copy-and-paste would destroy the history, so I will do as you say. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I have my doubts that this person has notability independent of her membership in the K-pop group Apink, but I could be wrong. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ref. The Wardstone Chronicles. No articles created!!

Ref. The Wardstone Chronicles. The articles about the last six books have not been created and redirect to the Wardstone Chronicles again. I am a beginner but somehow I have made an article about the seventh book, visit Spooks Nightmare, I cannot even remove the redirect tag of the next books from The Wardstone Chronicles and I seriously want to create articles about those book instead of redirecting them to the same page gain so please support and help me, about six to seven books are to be made an article!!!HighnessAtharva (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, HighnessAtharva. If you go to the first "missing link" (so to speak), i.e. Spook's: I Am Grimalkin, it will redirect to Wardstone Chronicles as you say. Then just under the title of that page will be a notification "(Redirected from Spook's: I Am Grimalkin)" and if you click on that link it will take you to the redirect page. By editing this page, replacing the #REDIRECT line, you can create the article as usual.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, HighnessAtharva. I notice that you have replaced the redirection codes on those articles with the text "Please edit guys, help Wikipedia grow, Joseph Delaney fans!!" Please don't do that, because it makes the article meaningless for a reader. With the redirection, at least the reader got something useful; this way they get nothing. I have reverted those changes, so the redirections are back. The time to replace the redirection is when you have something meaningful to replace it with.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, a word of caution - if you look at their histories, some of these books had articles before, which were removed due to lack of references in reliable sources. So if you want to avoid a similar fate, I suggest starting by gathering your sources. Collect newspaper and magazine articles, perhaps on the relevant Talk page, until there is enough to form the basis of a decent article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_432&oldid=1077822211"