Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 519

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 515←Archive 517Archive 518Archive 519Archive 520Archive 521→Archive 525

How do i get a pin on an infobox

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2teau_de_Challain-la-Potherie on this article, the 2nd pic of the infobox is a map with a pin. How is that possible? Pyrusca (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pyrusca, welcome to the Teahouse. Château de Challain-la-Potherie says {{Infobox building | ... }}. That means it uses Template:Infobox building. There is documentation at Template:Infobox building#Map and coordinates. Looking at Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Location map France you can use | map_type = France Pays de la Loire or | map_type = France. There doesn't appear to be an option specifically for Maine-et-Loire (a department in the Pays de la Loire region) like in the French Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course, French Wikipedia's way of doing things could be different. If you're asking how to do that on the French Wikipedia, I suggest you ask there. -- Gestrid (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi I just wanted to as how to do this on English Wikipedia. I was working on the translation so I was curious how this was done here. Thank you both of you. Pyrusca (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I HAVE CREATED A PAGE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Kumar_(cinematographer). I want the page's title as only 'S.KUMAR ISC'. But now the link is redirecting and all as I made some mistakes. I am not a very experienced editor. Can some one please help me by correcting it as S.Kumar ISC. Thank you! Pitarobertz (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pitarobertz, welcome to the Teahouse. The page is now at S. Kumar ISC with a space after the initial. Pages must always be renamed by using the move function and not by copy-paste. It's OK to have a redirect at S. Kumar (cinematographer). PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Pitarobertz. I'm afraid PrimeHunter has steered you wrong on this one. You can't just rename an article to whatever you want, Wikipedia has conventions which all pages must adhere to in order to maintain consistency across the encyclopaedia. Articles about people must almost always be titled with the first and second name of the person, without any styling, titles, postnominals, etc. When more than one person shares a name, we disambiguate by placing their profession in brackets after the name. It's slightly irregular that his first name is abbreviated to S., but that appears to be how he is always named, so that's okay. Joe Roe (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Deleting Articles??

Hi there. I created a page called User:Smirkstrip21/Subpage, but was only meant to be a test. I was wondering how you can delete an article, because it seems I can't delete it. Smirkstrip21 (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Only administrators can delete pages. I've done it for you. For future reference you can request deletion of your user pages by adding {{db-user}} somewhere on the page, which will flag it up for administrators attention. Optimist on the run (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok thank you. Smirkstrip21 (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, Smirkstrip21, if you create a draft (for example, Draft:Example), and you are the only main contributor to that draft, you can type {{db-self}} (including the curly parentheses) at the top of the page. That will flag it for administrators to look at and will add the notice seen at the top of this page. If administrators deem that you are the only main contributor to the draft (or almost anything else you place that template on, for that matter), they will delete it. There are somethings that can't be deleted this way, such as category pages, talk pages, or user pages. (For user pages, you would use {{db-user}}, as Optimist on the run told you.) -- Gestrid (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfriendly behaviour.

Hi

I created a page and 24 hours later it was deleted. I recieved some messages but, since the page is now gone, have no way of knowing what I did wrong other than re-reading all the million rules I already read. I want the text I wrote back so I can improve it, yet now it is impossible.

All I want to do is write some articles about some of my teachers in University, all of which are notable but have very little written about them in English speaking websites. Some have Hebrew Wiki articles. I do not understand how I'm supposed to do so if everything I write cannot be varified because none of the people who delete these sorts of things can read my hebrew sources. This has been extremely annoying as someone who wants to contribute and is not allowed to learn from my mistakes. OdedFire (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, OdedFire. According to the message left for you at User talk:OdedFire#Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Billie Melman, your draft article was deleted because it was a copyright violation. You can't post text on Wikipedia that is copied directly from other sources (except for short quotes, which should be in quote marks). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Cordless Larry I understand that, but this was a DRAFT. Not an article. This is supposed to be a place for me to learn how to do things, isn't it? A draft, not an article that's linked to other places? And besides, after the first copyright notice went up I heavily modified the text to the point where it no longer resembled the "source". And it was still considered copying. I don't understand how I'm supposed to write about this person then. Anything I write about her life is going to look like her TLV uni page because... she's the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdedFire (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Drafts are not exempt from the rules regarding copyright. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Write about her without copying and pasting copyright text into the draft, OdedFire. That's how all other Wikipedia volunteers have to do it, and most don't find that difficult. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Fine, thanks Cordless Larry. I'll try writing it again, though it's a shame the draft was taken down. I guess I should try the sandbox next time unless that might not be exempt, as well. We'll see. Is there a page where I can learn how to avoid what I'm writing being seen as a copyright violation? Even if I don't strictly copy/paste from another English source, I'm still going to hit many similar points since we're talking about a person's life here. OdedFire (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Sandboxes are not exempt from copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Anything that is copyrighted and so anything that is copied from another web site will normally be taken down quickly. Test or practice edits are not an exception. It is always possible to revise a person's CV or other account of their life to be in your own words. The key is that it must be in your own words, not those of the university or anyone else. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Writing things in your own words is surely a key part of being a university student, OdedFire? If you were unable to do this, then you would have breached plagiarism rules in your written work - have some faith in your ability to write for yourself! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Cordless Larry Fortunatly, university students don't have to fear other people reaching into their computers and deleting their drafts, and this method was actually encouraged by some of the people I learned under - copy a paragraph, re-write it, rephrase and make it your own. You just never gave me the oppertunity to do the latter. Nevermind. I'll write something down in the comfort of my own MSword and hope you people would be more benevolent next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdedFire (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
But if you post a draft on Wikipedia, it's not on your computer but rather on a publically accessible website. You can draft something in Word however you want, and then add it to Wikipedia when it is free from copyright violations. That way, Wikipedia won't be in violation of copyright law and you can still write in the fashion that you are comfortable with. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

OdedFire, can I just add: nobody is being mean to you. This is not personal. We are all volunteers here and we're trying to help, but republishing copyright text without permission is illegal and puts the Wikipedia project as a whole in jeopardy, so it's important that it is dealt with quickly. Wikipedia runs on civil discussion and consensus, so this combative attitude is not going to get you anywhere.

Also, as a teacher and journal editor, let me tell you that what you've described is an incredibly bad way of writing and will likely land you in serious trouble for plagiarism down the line. Write in your own words, don't modify others' until you think they're sufficiently different to slip by. Joe Roe (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Joe Roe Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as combative, it's just that, well, I thought a draft was just that. That it would be left alone until I was ready to publish it, or at least have someone help me rewrite it, not just delete it entirely. I understand that you have to be swift with plagiarism but what I had in mind was... well, just me throwing words on a page until I feel like they can be rewritten into something coherent and original, not just "passing as original" - and then published. When I created a draft, I assumed I was free to leave it half-baked. Turns out I was wrong. So yeah, sorry about that.
Anyway, I apologize for my anger, it's just that now, well, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to write about this person at all. I have her own page where she writes about herself, the Hebrew Wiki article and some references to people critiquing her work. Any thing I'll do will rely on these sources, and I have no way of knowing if the next time I try and write something about her it will be seen as plagiarism again. OdedFire (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
That's alright. In future just remember that nothing on Wikipedia is private (even your deleted article is retained somewhere, though only visible to admins) and everything is subject to change by other editors at any time.
The general idea is to look at your source (in this case the faculty page), extract the factual information, and describe that in your own words. Alternatively, you can simply translate the Hebrew Wikipedia article, see Wikipedia:Translation for info on how. Joe Roe (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify in case I confused matters, OdedFire, there is actually a difference between copyright violations and plagiarism. You can cite the source for some material and it won't be plagiarism, but if the material makes up a significant proportion of the source text and that text is subject to copyright, then it will be a copyright violation. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
{{u|Joe Roe} {{u|Cordless Larry} I see, well, thanks for clearing that up. I guess I assumed wrong about the purpose of the drafts (other, private Wikis I worked on usually treated drafts as personal playgrounds for testing) and when all the tips on how to improve the page got deleted I was upset. Nevermind. I suppose translating at least parts of the Hebrew article would be ok? Large parts of it are basically descriptions of the content of every single book this person has written and don't seem to cite any source. I'm afraid modifying that one would be seen as vandalism so I thought starting a new one here would be better OdedFire (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Why would that be seen as vandalism, OdedFire? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Cordless Larry New user coming in, deleting half a page's content? Even if I say that the whole section is uncited, it doesn't matter. Other articles about other professors seem to follow the same pattern. Long descriptions of their books and stuff, with the only proof is the "further reading section" containing the name for that book. Hebrew Wiki is a strange place, with lower standards, methinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdedFire (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Standards and policies do vary between different language Wikipedias, OdedFire. I would hope that such behaviour wouldn't be regarded as vandalism here on English Wikipedia, because WP:VERIFY states that "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" (and that "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OdedFire, what you can do with your article is look at all the sources you have and then summarize them in your own words instead of trying to mention everything in every article. I would also recommend using our Articles for Creation process so that your article (once it's moved out of draftspace) would survive an Articles for Deletion discussion. As for Hebrew Wikipedia's standards, that's probably true. Most Wikipedia sites govern themselves, even though they are all owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. In my experience, English Wikipedia is probably one of the Wikipedia sites with the highest standards. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

How to reference something to prove it didn't happen

In the section Wat Phra Dhammakaya#Present activities there is the sentence: "The news papers did not respond to the temple's statement." This refers to something that did not happen. How can you proof that something did not happen, if there is not source to proof it? (Since nothing happened.)S Khemadhammo (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, S Khemadhammo. You can't, unless you can find a source that says that the newspapers didn't respond. In this context, I would say that the statement is tendentious, and should be removed if it cannot be sourced. --ColinFine (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I understand that, and was considering to remove it. But I was just wondering whether I had overlooked any way of proving this.S Khemadhammo (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
To reiterate, you can "prove" it by finding another reliable source that says the same thing (because Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth). Joe Roe (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright. I've removed it now.S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

picture upload and artist summary box

Hi, Just finalizing my first page for my daughter and performer Avery Raquel. I'd like to add a photo or two, but I keep getting an error message. I also would like to add a summary box, similar to the one found on most artist pages for example (search: Matt Dusk). How do I do that?

I think I'm almost ready to publish the page. It's presently sitting in my sandbox.

Thanks,

Lorne Lkadish (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lorne. I'm sorry to tell you this at this stage, but you really shouldn't be writing an article about your own daughter. Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy that strongly discourages editing articles about family members:
You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends, or foes. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions.
Writing about subjects you are personally connected creates a tendency to violate our neutral point of view, undermines public confidence in Wikipedia and risks causing embarrassment for you and/or your daughter
If your daughter is a notable person, a volunteer editor will create an article for her in time. Joe Roe (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Joe. I did not realize that. She is a notable person, so I was merely writing the article based on that. So how do I transfer this article created thus far, to a volunteer editor, who can take it the distance? Lkadish (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Joe,
Read your other post about conflicts. Thank you. The article is presently sitting in my user space as a draft. How do I submit it to you for review and potential post? Lkadish (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I've taken a quick look at the draft and I think it's unlikely that she meets the notability criteria, but if you are set on ignoring the COI policy and submitting it, then you can do so by clicking the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button in the box at the top of the page. However, you should declare your COI so the reviewer can take it into account. You will also almost certainly be asked to cut down the excessive promotional detail.
To answer your initial question, those boxes are called are templates called "infoboxes". You will want to add "Infobox musician", "Infobox actor" or "Infobox person" to your draft, which you can do through Insert -> Template in the Visual Editor. Joe Roe (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Restoring deleted pages

When administrators delete a page, they can see the content. When we delete a file from our computer hard drive, it's gone. Some administrators restore deleted pages. Then this delete is not permanent? If an article is deleted three times, then administrators can see the combined edit history of all versions together? Marvellous Spider-Man 18:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back Mr. Parker. Yes, "deleting" is a bit of a misnomer. The pages aren't actually deleted like a file on your computer (without getting too technical). It would be more literal to say that the page is hidden, albeit it hidden from the vast majority of editors and readers. TimothyJosephWood 18:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Marvellous Spider-Man. Yes, essentially all "deleting" an article does is hide it from the view of an ordinary user. The article is retained in Wikipedia's database and administrators can still see the full history (or histories). There is an "enhanced" deletion process called suppression which hides the content even from administrators, but again the data is not really gone, just hidden, and it can be un-suppressed. The idea is there's always a way for other people to review decisions and correct mistakes. If you have a good reason to, you can ask an admin to view or restore a deleted page for you. As far as I know nothing is ever truly deleted from Wikipedia's servers.
(Irrelevant aside: it isn't actually so different from when you delete a file on your computer. Deleting a file just tells the operating system to forget where the data is, but the actual data—the 1s and 0s—is still on your hard drive and can be recovered with specialist software. The difference is that data from deleted files on your hard drive will eventually be overwritten with new files, and be truly gone, but on Wikipedia it sticks around forever.) Joe Roe (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Depending on the operating system, settings and deletion method, a deleted file may actually be kept intact in the trash (computing) for a while. Wikipedia deletion is a bit like a permanent trash which is only visible to administrators. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Should the article on the Aerican Empire be deleted too?

I noticed that the article on the Kingdom of North Sudan (the only settled claim of Bir Tawil [citation needed]) got deleted. I wonder why. Apparently it was because some people doubted the legitimacy of such a claim. Yet again many people have never heard of either North Sudan or the Aerican Empire. So it makes sense that the Aerican Empire article also should be deleted. It might be considered not notable. (but then it would make Wikipedia biased towards what more people are aware of) Maybe the article didn't have enough citations? Or the editors cited unreliable sources? I didn't come up with either of those pages but I think those articles are good for Wikipedia. I don't know why the article had to be deleted just because many people think it isn't legitimate when some people do acknowledge it. Why doesn't Wikipedia want articles to be about things or refer to things that an insignificant minority know about? What does significant even mean? The deletion would be justified if the claimer of that micronation made that article (conflict of interest). Maybe the Aerican Empire article wasn't deleted because Eric Lis didn't make the article? Turkeybutt (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Background: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of North Sudan
Hi Turkeybutt - Please don't start making vague accusations on your second day as an editor.
Aerican Empire has been proposed for deletion twice before - and both times the decision was to keep the article - please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerican Empire and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerican Empire (2nd nomination) for the previous discussions - Arjayay (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Taking a quick look at Aerican Empire, I think it is quite likely that it should be deleted. You are welcome to initiate the WP:AFD process on it Turkeybutt JC. --ColinFine (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Nevermind. I just don't understand Wikipedia's rules for notability. I don't even know what 'innotable' means at all. Or maybe Wikipedia's servers are getting full and the article on the Kingdom of North Sudan had to be deleted to save up space... it's not that I would want the Aerican Empire article to be deleted too. Both micronations have their own websites. The Empire claims Mars, the northern hemisphere of Pluto, a ficticious world of Verden and some silly places on Earth. The Kingdom of North Sudan claims the Bir Tawil unclaimed region. Either the article lacked sources or reliable sources. (sorry if I repeat myself) I'm just sad that the article on the Kingdom of North Sudan had to be deleted. --Turkeybutt (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It didn't have to be deleted, but it was decided that it should be in a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of North Sudan. You need to read that discussion to understand why it was deleted, Turkeybutt JC. It has nothing to do with server space. For a simple explanation of Wikipedia's definition of notability, see Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
By the way, it doesn't have to do with servers being full. Deleting an article does not save any server space, because the article is still available to administrators for Requests for Undeletion. If the servers get full, the WMF has to buy more servers. It has to do with notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
'Notable' means it can be noted. Anything can be noted. But I do stand corrected about the deletion of articles. How can I view deleted articles and revisions deleted from edit history logs? But I think the word 'notable' is being misused. As I just said, notable means it can be noted. If one says "An American person went to Bir Tawil to claim it for himself so his daughter could be a princess" then they have already noted it. Everything can be noted. So that means everything is notable. Try thinking of something that literally isn't notable. (and I mean something we can't define or describe or explain or even write down about) I can't think of the literally unspeakable or the unexplainable or the unwritable or undocumentable either. --Turkeybutt (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I looked on the page and now I do not know how many reliable sources an article needs to have before it can be considered significant. It's like finding out exactly how much we can take away from a heap of sand until it isn't a heap anymore. --Turkeybutt (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
(e/c) Hey Turkeybutt. Words and phrases have whatever meaning they are defined as having in specific contexts – terms of art. Many common words are given exacting definitions in particular disciplines – that may differ mildly or wildly from common vernacular or dictionary definitions. Notability at Wikipedia has a very specific definition which is given at Wikipedia:Notability and expanded upon and clarified at numerous other pages related to that guideline. So trying to use your sense of the dictionary definition (which, by the way, is not the meaning you ascribe; it doesn't mean being noted, it means worthy of notice; important) is not relevant. It is true, though, that new users are sometimes confused because they engraft their sense of the word when they hear it here, so it may be unfortunate another word was not chosen. If you feel that way, you would be far from the first.

The way to view deleted articles and revisions deleted from edit history logs is to become really very familiar with our policies and guidelines, along the way makes a few tens of thousands of good edits over a few years and then, with that experience under your belt, apply to be an administrator. In short, only administrators and other with higher access levels can do that. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(e/c, Edit: response is to Turkeybutt's two posts, not Fughettaboutit's, since indentation could be taken either way) First, while 'notable' can indeed mean 'capable of being noted', it should be taken closer to 'can be taken notice of' in the context of Wikipedia, or better yet the fairly common definition "worthy of attention or notice", with the addendum by Wikipedia. (Perhaps yet better, has received notice outside Wikipedia and is worthy of attention/notice by Wikipedia)
Just because something isn't notable in regards to Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not worth taken notice of by anyone. (Just because, say, my neighbour isn't notable within the context of Wikipedia doesn't mean he's not worth paying any attention or notice to, as is evidenced among other things by the fact he's been happily married for a long time now. That the house-fire last month on the other side of town doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article doesn't mean the firefighters shouldn't have paid attention to it at all)
What it does mean is that either it is outside the scope of Wikipedia; is worthy of notice on Wikipedia only within a larger context, like an article about the full album rather than a specific non-single non-hit-scoring song; would be worthy of notice if it were sufficiently covered in reliable, independent sources, but in spite of searching no such sources could be found and can reasonably be presumed not to exist (yet); and so on. (I haven't quite exhausted all possibilities here, but it should give a fair enough picture)
'Significant coverage' is not merely about the number of sources, nor even just about the number of reliable, independent sources, but rather, about the way such sources mention or describe a subject. If you've got a hundred reliable sources about 'Jacob Doe' that each contain a trivial mention of John Doe—for example, "Jacob Doe has stated that his father, John Doe, was supportive of his choice to become a pianist"—that's still not significant coverage of John Doe. After all, what's covered isn't John, it's Jacob. John Doe just happens to be mentioned there as well. Even if John is notable for something, it's not shown—because being related to a notable person is not in and of itself notable, nor is being supportive of his son's choice—and such sources thus do nothing to prove his notability, merely his existence. On the other hand, a far smaller number of highly in-depth articles in reliable, independent newspapers or journals that make clear why a subject is notable go a long way.
Beyond that, the kind of subject involved and nuances about sources also play a role. If something belonging to an otherwise obscure/niche subject makes it to the mainstream (like a major, nation-wide newspaper) in the form of an in-depth article even as other topics in that niche rarely do, and it is supported by multiple equally in-depth articles in smaller, niche-related but also reliable and independent publications, that is at least as good an indication of notability within its particular context (like, say, entomology) as multiple articles in widely read publications about something related to a subject that always gets a lot of attention (like popular sports). Beyond that, some sources may well be reliable and independent for certain subjects, but not others. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Something about the user page template

Hello I created my user page recently and added the template Service award progress but the edit bar never change while the time bar changes everyday Does this template changes automatically?

Eddie123e (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you have to manually update the parameter |edits based upon the number of edits you have made. This is visible in your preferences, or here. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 17:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!

Eddie123e 06:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddie123e (talk • contribs)

Translating an article to other language(s)

Hi,, my name is Reza and I want to translating an article about "Echinodorus cordifolius" to Bahasa Indonesia. can anyone here can give me instruction..?? thanks..

and sorry about my english..Reza Adi Pratama (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Reza Adi Pratama, please follow the guidance at WP:Translate us. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Im having a trouble in uploading picture

Hi,, my name in Reza and Im new here.. I was trying to upload a picture of Echinodorus cordifolius plants in this article but its always fail.. please give me solution.. thanks..

and sorry about my english..Reza Adi Pratama (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Reza Adi Pratama: Where are you trying to upload it to? English WIkipedia? Indonesian Wikipedia? Wikimedia Commons? Maproom (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Query regarding my first article which was declined for publication due issues regarding notability of sources

Hi there,

I am new to Wikipedia and on 23.08.16, I submitted my first article for publication but it got declined on the grounds that the sources were not notable enough to merit publication. I sent a message to the account who declined me asking for further guidance but I have not received a reply.

Please find the correspondence below:


This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Hi Gbawden, I am wondering if you could give me a little more guidance on the feedback above you gave regarding the declined submission of the BSME article.

The proof of notability provided in the form of general references for the article are all (with the exception of the official BSME website) independent of the subject of the article (BSME): they are secondary sources, coming from notable publications who are either celebrating an employee's success in the running for a BSME award or reporting on an event hosted by the BSME. If these sources cannot be considered reliable, would you be able to tell me what sort of sources would be required to successfully submit the article in this particular case.

Many thanks in advance,


I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions for me or could advise me as to how to proceed further with this matter?

Thanks!

Annb16 (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Convinience link: this is about Draft:BSME The British Society of Magazine Editors. Maproom (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Annb16. You're quite right – I've accepted your submission. My apologies for the error. Joe Roe (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi there,

After a few minutes of creating my first Wikipedia page, I got a notice saying that my page was nominated for a speedy deletion. I challenged this notice, but I was unsure on why this happened so quickly. If you have any information or ideas, please reply.

Thanks, Njmcq100 08:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njmcq100 (talk • contribs)

Njmcq100: The reasons are stated in the notice at the top of Ghostbusters: Paranormal Blast (Video Game). Maproom (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
In addition to those reasons, the article doesn't cite any sources and is written in an unencyclopedic style (exclamation marks are rarely appropriate). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Njmcq100. It is unfortunate that so many people come to Wikipedia and immediately embark on one of the hardest tasks there is: creating a new article. I always advise people to spend a few weeks improving some of our five million existing articles first, and learning how Wikipedia works. Then I advise them to read Your first article carefully. --ColinFine (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Societies with divided, partisan media

I am writing and editing articles with regard to Thai Buddhism, so usually this is not an issue, but it does become an issue as soon as I cover something that has to do with politics. I find that Thai media are so strongly divided about political issues, Red Shirts and Yellow Shirt issues, and other political pressure groups, that I find it difficult to gather neutral, reliable information. I understand you would just have to try to show a balanced perspective showing opinions of two sides of the spectrum, but this isn't easy, especially since many Red Shirt media outlets in Thailand have gone underground or abroad since the last coup d'etat. So my questions are:

  1. How do you gather information about a political movement, that to some extent communicates through unofficial Youtube Channels and temporary websites, which obviously go against Wikipedia policy for reliable sources?
  2. Have any policies been written especially dealing with divided media?
  3. Do you have an example article that managed to deal with these issues effectively, preferably higher than C level?

Thank you very much.S Khemadhammo (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back SK. I think the closest thing to what you are looking for is the policy on neutrality, specifically the parts dealing with balance in an article. Unfortunately, as you seem to point out, if the nature of a topic is such that there are no reliable sources regarding it, it's probably outside the range of what Wikipedia can cover, at least until more is published on the matter. TimothyJosephWood 14:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks anyway.S Khemadhammo (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

inquiry

How can i add an article about an upcoming artist that i read on?

GTProductionsLLC (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey GTProductionsLLC. Please see guidance at Wikipedia:Your first article. Also please note that usernames which indicate you represent a company are not allowed under Wikipedia policy. You may request a change for your username here. In the case that you do represent a company, you should take a quick read through of our policy on conflict of interest. TimothyJosephWood 13:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
However, we do not cover a subject because it is claimed to be the Up and coming next big thing. We only cover subjects that have already received extensive coverage in reliable sources that are totally independent of the subject - not their website, press releases, exhibition or sales catalogues, PR firm, agency etc. as these are not independent. - Arjayay (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Citations for Football Stadium

Hello all. I am looking at the article for Thong Nhat stadium (as I am creating a new article for a new stadium also) - however, the Thong Nhat stadium notes that "This article needs additional citations for verification" - for something such as an physical object like a stadium - what sort of additional sources are required here to complete the article - links to newspaper/web articles etc.? Finally, when uploading an image of the stadium that I took, I get the message "{{autotranslate|base=Abusefilter-warning-baduploads}}"... Thanks! John arneVN (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, John arneVN. The maintenance tag on Thống Nhất Stadium was placed by an editor in 2009, and may be removed by any editor who thinks that it is no longer appropriate. (Do give a meaningful edit summary, so that it does not look like vandalism). The English sources don't look like reliable independent sources to me, but I haven't looked closely; and I've no idea about the Vietnamese sources. Like anything else, the article requires Wikipedia's standards of WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability, so yes, major newspapers, or web articles from a site with a reputation for responsible reporting and fact-checking. And links are secondary: the important thing is to provide bibliographic information so that the reader can in principle check the resource (eg through a library). As for the picture, I'm afraid I don't know; but I suspect that there is a word in your caption or description which has triggered a filter. Please see WP:Edit filter for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Colin.

John arneVN (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Foreign-language sources

If you are aiming to develop your article in a level A article, what kind of percentage of foreign-language sources would be acceptable, within the conditions of WP:NOENG?S Khemadhammo (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

S Khemadhammo, NOENG is the applicable policy, and there is no overarching rule for what portion of sources must be English language. The key point of the policy is that foreign language sources should not be used when there are English sources of equal quality. TimothyJosephWood 15:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Timothyjosephwood S Khemadhammo (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Article with COI - review before submission

I have a COI with regards to the draft Stonestreet Farm. I have declared this on the talk page. I would appreciate input before submitting it for official review. thanks AnnualGeneral (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey AnnualGeneral. The draft looks pretty good. It's a little heavy on the lists, so if there's a way to trim that down and use prose instead, I would recommend it just as a stylistic tip. But it doesn't read overly promotional in tone, and shouldn't have terribly problems passing review. TimothyJosephWood 20:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

thank you!! AnnualGeneral (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding a new bio?

Hello, just trying to find where/how to add a bio on an artist.2601:40D:4300:33C0:7135:8C9:9D54:59E9 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article, about any subject, is not easy, and I would advise any new editor to spend at least a few weeks improving existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before embarking on that task. I suggest you study Your first article carefully. --ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Another thing to read, IP editor, is our notability guideline for artists. Also, opening a Wikipedia account offers many benefits, including easier collaboration with other editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Citations for a list

This is a question I've run into a few times, is there a consensus on where to put the citation for a list in wikipedia? I've looked at the manual of style for lists but it doesn't mention referencing. I don't want to put it in the section title or on it's own, but adding it to one item suggests that only that item is covered. Thanks, Therealmorris (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Therealmorris. I suggest that you browse Wikipedia:Featured lists, as these are our very best, peer-reviewed list articles. If you follow the standards you see in those lists, you cannot go wrong. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Translation and modification of a French wikipedia article

I am a relatively experienced French contributor (12000 edits) but it is the first new article in English that I create with the help of a friend of mine. This article is a translation of the French article fr:Castellanus of which I am one of the main contributors. By the French standards, there is no question that the article is acceptable because there are 20 references coming from reputable sources. However, I do not know how the English wikipedia is working since it is my first new article and before I move the article to the main space, I would appreciate if someone could review my article and ensure that it is acceptable. The help pages to new comers say that it is very rare that the first draft of an article is acceptable. Thank you in advance. The draft article is the following: User:Malosse/Castellanus. Thank you in advance. Malosse (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I have several comments:
  • "it is very rare that the first draft of an article is acceptable" because most of them are written by inexperienced editors on non-notable subjects. In my opinion, User:Malosse/Castellanus is acceptable as it is.
  • The first sentence uses the word "crenellated". This word will be unfamiliar to many English speakers, so I recommend wikilinking it, as I just did.
  • If you want other editors to work on the proposed article before you ask for it to be moved to article space, you could move it to draft space.
  • Stratocumulus_cloud#Species has a paragraph "Stratocumulus Castellanus". Once your article is in article space, that paragraph should link to it. Maproom (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I moved the article to Draft. May I now cross reference this article with the other wikis and add the categories pertaining to this article or do I need to wait that I transfer this article to the main space? Thanks. Malosse (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Drafts do not get added to categories. You can, if you wish, provide links to relevant categories by putting a colon before the word Category in the link, for example [[:Category:category_name]]. Inter-wiki language links shouldn't be added until the article moves to mainspace. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Malosse. As you saw, I provided belated [mandatory] copyright attribution for the page. Please keep this in mind for any next translation you might do. The whys and wherefores of this can be seen at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects and Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. This could have been created directly in the Mainspace. As indicated by Maproom, the reason many drafts are not acceptable is that some alarmingly high percentage are by Jane or Joe Blow promoting their non-notable plumbing supply store, car dealership, consulting firm; product, gaming clan, etc.), sourced to a blog, and copied and pasted from their Facebook/LinkedIn entry. The page could use more sourcing but it's not at all the type of entry that we are thinking of with that statement. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I have 2 questions: 1) Can I have an article written in French while I perform the translation in the main space of the English wikipedia? I would say no because a translation is not something that can be done rapidly. It is the reason why I did it in my user space so that I can take all the time that I want. 2) Isn't sufficient to put in the history (as I did) Translation from French. Do I have to say explicitly COPYRIGHT NOTICE etc... ? Thanks for your help. Malosse (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if you're going to translate as you go using a personal sandbox or a draft is a good way. No that is not sufficient. The page must indicate you are using text from another location, with that source linked; a direct connection so that the page history where the list of authors – in this case including significantly you – is directly accessible to comply with the attribution credit requirements of section 4(c) of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. You do not have to say "COPYRIGHT ATTRIBUTION NOTICE..." as I did. That was because I was fixing the copyright violation with a prominent edit summary since the attribution was not attached to the location it should have been (i.e., placed in the first edit). Just follow the suggested model text at the two policy pages I linked in my first post. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

How to help in article improvement

Hi All,

I wants to know how can i search articles which need improvements. I want to work with article improvements on Wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambojharsangeet (talk • contribs) 16:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Kambojharsangeet. There are plenty of these kinds of lists. It would probably be helpful to know what type of areas you're knowledgeable about and interested in. TimothyJosephWood 18:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Kambojharsangeet. One way to get started is to go to the Community portal page and pick one of the many small tasks that are on offer. In the process of completing them, you will learn more about how Wikipedia works, which includes making mistakes, asking questions when things don't go the way you expect, and learning by watching what other people have done. Creating a new article from scratch is a daunting task for a new editor; better to get some time in on smaller (and every bit as important) edits in several ways before tackling it.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, What are different areas. Is there a way to check list of area so that i can choose. Kambojharsangeet (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks jmcgnh, I found list of area on Community portal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambojharsangeet (talk • contribs) 05:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Non biographical information in biography section of person article.

Hi there, I would like to ask about Wikipedias policy or opinion about non biographical opinion or claims about a person in the biography section of an article? Please if one of the experienced editors could give an opinion/advice on the second half of a paragraph on the Sri Chinmoy article page in the biography section that starts after reference (53)with the sentence 'In 2009 Jayanti Tamm published....perceptions'. I feel the information there although cited is not actually about Sri Chinmoy's life and not appropriately placed for a biography section. Any suggestions would be very welcome and thank you in advance. Spinach444 (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The half-paragraph you refer to gives relevant information about Sri Chinmoy and his teaching, while making it clear that the source is not impartial. I think it should be retained. However, the best place to discuss this is the talk page of the article. Maproom (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Listing renewed publications

I've added to the "key writings" portion for the author Hans Wilhelm Frei. His out of print book is currently in print again. I also added a link to where that book is being sold. I've got a feeling that my COI is in regards to providing a html to a business selling a book. Could that be verified please? I also wish to verify that listing the current key writings is acceptable. I know of many authors whose writings are not listed and I wish to add them into the key writings section. Is it acceptable to list updated publications? In this case "The Identity of Jesus Christ" is out of print and unavailable from (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975). It is in print with (Cascade Books). May I continue to amend author's key writings? Is there a location inside of wikipedia to provide a link to acquiring those key writings?

This is my first posting and I appreciate your instructions and consideration. I would like to post many more references to many more authors.

Thank you for your timeNathanielAlfredStock (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NathanielAlfredStock. Can you clarify why you think you have a conflict of interest? Are you related to the author, or do you own or work for the business selling the book, or something else? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
There's a follow-up discussion here. Please post further questions back here at the Teahouse though, NathanielAlfredStock, because others might have useful inputs to make. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding images to a page

Hello teahouse!

I'm new and am trying to start out editing some pages on topics I'm interested in. I noticed that the Nancy Drew page is in need of some images, especially that of iconic Nancy Drew imagery of her sleuthing adventures. I went to Wikicommons to find some pictures but also had a hard time finding it there. If I don't get the images from WikiCommons am I still able to upload? Znrodrig (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Znrodrig. I'm afraid the answer is probably no. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Images in Wikimedia Commons are required to be free to reuse, which means that they are either in the public domain (either by explicit decision, or by reason of age) or have been explicitly released under a suitable licence, such as CC-BY-SA. It is possible that some of the earlier Nancy Drew covers are now out of copyright (I'm looking at the justification for PD status in File:Charles Halton in Nancy Drew... Reporter.jpg), but to upload any particular one to commons would require specific justification that it was in the public domain. So most images you can find are probably not PD or free-licensed, and so cannot be uploaded to Commons. It is possible to use non-free images in a limited way, as is done in the Nancy Drew article; but you would need to justify using another one according to the criteria in non free content criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Autobiography

I would like to create my biography on Wikipedia. Can you help me?Giljonnys (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you have forgotten the advice you received previously about autobiography? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

publish draft

I'm ready to submit a draft for publication review (Stonestreet Farm) but can no longer see an option to submit. What am I doing wrong here? AnnualGeneral (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC) My apologies, I asked too soon and have found the answer AnnualGeneral (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Committted identity use

Hello everyone, I was setting up a Committted identity for myself using SHA-512.

I was wondering about it's effectiveness, If someone compromises your account, can't they simply delete the template from your userpage or even change the hash of it.

It even states the weakness on the template page: "An attacker with access to the account could overwrite the hash with their own one. They could then say that the previous owner of the account was an attacker who claimed their identity and generated his own hash. An attacker without access to the account could claim that the current account's owner stole their identity. The attacker could state that they did not publish a hash when they used to own the account, or that they did not register an account and that someone else is using their name."

It seems quite pointless to me to have this committed identity unless you actually have to register it with Wikipedia. Leaving a template on your userpage doesn't seem like it would work. NikolaiHo 19:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I would think, that if you add a committed identity and nothing happens for years, when it does, you have already established that the one who put it there is the account's proper owner. If it was only there for a few short days however, I believe that with it, one can raise enough concern that a checkuser can be run to determine the account's owner. Should the owner not be able to recover their account, they may create a new one, and using the committed identity, recover their privileges, and even the account name, should they ask. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Notability

I am trying to improve my patrolling skills. I've read the wp:Notability section and believe I understand it. Another editor has declined A7 nomination because "(declined speedy deletion - Being a CEO is a credible claim of significance)". I disagree, every corporation has a CEO. It's the references and search results that make it credible to me. Wrong? Cotton2 (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Cotton2. If you take a look at WP:A7 again, you'll see that it says that it applies to articles that do not indicate why their subject is important or significant, but that this "is a lower standard than notability". An article can fail our notability requirements but still make a claim of importance or significance. In such cases, an AfD nomination would seem more appropriate. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Cordless Larry. I did go back and read A7, and found the guide Common A7 mistakes. On CEO's, it states,
  • Business
  • Is CEO or another high ranking employee of a notable company
  • Founded or otherwise helped start a notable company
  • Invented or pioneered a notable product / method

which goes back to my original thought that just because he/she is a CEO doesn't mean they should have an article. Cotton2 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Cotton2. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. We have three deletion processes, which are speedy deletion, proposed deletion (also called PROD), and Articles for Deletion (called AfD). Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial, unambiguous situations only. If there is any plausible claim of notability, speedy deletion is not appropriate. An article that says a person is a corporate CEO is a plausible claim of notabity. If you have done a good faith search for reliable sources about the person and found none, then nominate it at Articles for Deletion, for discussion by a group of editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

How we can do paid editing safely and create business profiles without any fear? Son of Khaldun (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The rules regarding paid editing are at WP:PAID, see also conflict of interest. Wikipedia does not have "business profiles"; it is an encyclopedia, and is not for promotion or advertising or other spam. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Son of Khaldun. "Profiles" are for LinkedIn and other social media websites. Abandon the concept of "profile" if you want to succeed as an editor here. Instead, read and study the neutral point of view, and ponder it, and study it some more. You must disclose your paying clients. You need to use the Articles for Creation process, and once any article is in the encyclopedia, you should use the talk page to suggest edits, and let editors without COI implement the edits. Please be aware that many experienced volunteer editors are highly skeptical of paid editors. Your best defense is to follow our policies and guidelines to the letter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
That is really great and helpful, right now I am not paid for anything, all the edits made by me are volunteer action based because I love history, politics, literature and entertainment industry. So I did made the edits that I found necessary to make. In future if I make any paid edit I would fully comply Wiki paid policies and disclose. I was just wondering that if I could make a living out of my passion, that is writing for Wikipedia. And I completely understand the neutral point of view and business profile concept, the "profile" word was wrongly used by me. I just wanted to ask what we need to create a page for a business or a company? Because I have seen a lot of such pages already successful part of Wikipedia. Son of Khaldun (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi ibn Khaldun, if you actually read WP:PAY, it is not just a matter of disclosing: if you accept money to promote a company on Wikipedia, you should not edit related articles at all. You can only ask others to make changes on your behalf. Of course, you would then be expecting volunteers to do work for which you would then be paid – one of reasons that lots of Wikipedians think poorly of paid editors. You should be prepared for a negative reaction if you go down that path. Paid and/or COI editing is something we are forced to accept and try to limit, definitely not something we encourage. Wikipedia is created by volunteers, it's not something you should ever expect to make a living from. Joe Roe (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
As for 'what we need to create a page for a business or a company' – please note there are no pages 'for' businesses or companies on Wikipedia, there are pages 'about' them instead. The difference is the page does not contain what a company wants, needs or likes to publish, but rather what others (WP:SOURCE) published about it. --CiaPan (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I see that you are a new editor, and have made edits in some areas in which you are interested. We welcome you as a new editor to Wikipedia. I hope that your questions about being a paid editor are just idle curiosity and that you quickly drop the idea of making any paid edits. As other editors have said, many experienced editors are hostile to paid editors, and Wikipedia policy is hostile to paid editors. It doesn’t forbid them, but it requires that they be disclosed, and it strongly discourages them. So if you want experienced editors to be friendly to you, we will, as long as you don’t go down the path of paid editing. We try to be civil to paid editors, but we also are not friendly to them. So I hope that your question about paid editing is just an innocent good-faith new editor question that you drop. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Awais Azad --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_519&oldid=1142564502"