Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 586

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

Archive 580

←

Archive 584

→

I need help

Hello to Everyone! I just joined wikipedia and i want to delete a page which is existed with incorrect name Darosh I real name is drosh how i can delete this page please help someone to delte this page.(Ahmed.dros (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC))

Note as per my talk page Incorrect Pages for delete this article mention Chitral-I, Chitral-II, Drosh-I, Drosh-II from January this year so the districts do appear to exist. As do the places Chitral and Drosh that have separate articles. As chitral.gov.pk is not responding for me I can't verify with the local government source. KylieTastic (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You say you want to delete a page. That is a complex subject, especially if you are new to Wikipedia. If you just want to correct the title of the page, or change it to a better title, that can be done easily: Immediately to the left of the Search box you will see a tab called "More". Hover your mouse over "More" and you will see "Move". Click on "Move" and you will be given the means to move the page to a new title. Dolphin (t) 11:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

HELP HELP HELP!!

I want to report about a admin about bad admin can you help me he block many inocent user and tagged them that these user are sockpuppet. Now i want to he remove from admins. Is that possible???(2A03:2880:3010:CFF7:FACE:B00C:0:8000 (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)).

It seems that you are not serious about this, anyways, sockpuppetry is a serious problem and admins are not always right about it, this is why they can request an unblock --DashyGames (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If you think that somebody (an admin or any other editor) is not behaving properly, the place to bring it up is WP:ANI. But you must have tried discussing the matter with the person concerned first (usually on their User Talk page) or your report will not be accepted. You also need to present specific evidence (usually as links to Wikipedia diffs or logs) for the behaviour you are complaining about. --ColinFine (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Writing articles in my Sandbox

I have a partially completed article in my Sandbox, but wish to start writing a second one.

Is there anywhere to store partially written articles for later work or can I only work on one at a time?

FRAS (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can have multiple userspace drafts. The easiest thing is to move User:FRAS/sandbox to User:FRAS/Ipswich Scientific-Gossip Society and then start your second draft at User:FRAS/whatever you want the next title to be. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I have an easier method. When I want to start a new draft I just blank one of my Sandboxes and start on my new draft. When I want to go back to the original one I select "View history" and then select the version I want. By selecting "Edit" and then "Save" I can continue working on the original draft. Dolphin (t) 11:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think most editors would find that harder. The bottom of user contributions has a Subpages link so it's easy to find your userspace drafts and other subpages. I use User:PrimeHunter/My subpages.js to make it even easier with a Subpages link at top of every page. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Air India's terminated destinations.

Hi there. Can I add the destinations Air India served previously? I will add source to all of the destinations. Can I add? Thank You! FlyJet777 (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey FlyJet777. In cases where you have well sourced information on an article's subject, Wikipedia policy encourages you to be bold and add the content. Then, if someone disagrees and reverts the change, you should discuss it with them on the article talk and try to reach some sort of compromise. TimothyJosephWood 14:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I need help

i have been looking for a reviewer to review two articles i created in joel orleans amponsah and rev erskine but no one can help me out.. Can someone here please help me ??Eddypep (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Your pages (those two, plus two others of yours) are in the queue awaiting new pages patrol, but you'll see at Special:NewPagesFeed that so are over 14000 other pages. As there are not many editors with the new page patrol user right, the backlog currents stands at about 4 months. While you are waiting, it would be wise for you to address the points which have already been raised in the maintenance tags at the top of each article. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Why has this article been deleted ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecysound_Systems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecysound_Systems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prophecysound_Systems#Contested_deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because

it is important. People want to know about the subject. Many distinguished and famous musicians use these effects units. Many similar boutique effects units companies have wikipedia pages with less content, less references and less links. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Man_(instrument_maker)

The Company has made pedals for the red hot chili peppers, Mother's favoraite son and the birds of tokyo and is therefore of importance interest to fans of those bands who wish to know more about their guitar sounds.

The pi phase pedal is of importance to many musicians and producers for its emulation of the historic Mu-Tron bi phase which many people wish to research and discover more about which is available through this article.

The credibility of the importance of this article is cited 8 times in the article.

Thoth almighty (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Thoth almighty. The article was tagged for speedy deletion because it didn't make a claim of significance, but from the looks of it, stated mainly that the company exists and has certain products. Sometimes that's a matter of opinion. However, what is not a matter of opinion is that the text of the article was copy/pasted from the company's website, which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on copyright. I have therefore tagged it for deletion as a copyright violation. While content on Wikipedia regularly draws from online sources for information, the actual text of an article has to be written in the editor's own words, and not copy/pasted from copyrighted online sources. TimothyJosephWood 14:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your reply.

The claim of significance is in the fact that it is used by many famous musicians inlcuding the red hout chili peppers and is a modern version of the Mu-Tron Bi Phase.

There are many other effects pedal companies on wikipedia with less credibility claims ;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Man_(instrument_maker)

how could this be ?

so if the text from the companies website is deleted than I cannot understand why it is not credible and should remain on Wikipedia as of note and importance. People's personal opinion should not come in to it. --Thoth almighty (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, nothing in the article said anything about what bands used the equipment. And that still doesn't change the fact that you have repeatedly copy/pasted copyrighted text from the company's website. TimothyJosephWood 14:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted (and salted) the article, and left a message on their talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The article Analog Man (instrument maker) has also been deleted for lack of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead section of small articles

Hello. I am recently following the Category:Pages_missing_lead_section so that I can write missing lead sections of some articles. Although I have a good idea of what a lead is and should be, in the case of such a small article as Cathedral of the Annunciation, Gospić, is the missing-lead template still warranted? If so, should the article be split into sections before its lead can be considered a proper lead? In this case, my personal impression is that this article contains just that, a lead section. Thank you very much. PaleoNeonate (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section which I just reread now, I see "All but the shortest articles should start with Introductory text (the "lead") [...]". Is this indeed a short enough one such that this applies? PaleoNeonate (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello PaleoNeonate and welcome to the Teahouse.

That article is marked as a stub, which means that it may just barely include enough information to continue to exist as an article on Wikipedia. Whoever placed the "missing lead" template on it is just wasting time, since all such templates are more-or-less assumed to apply to a stub article. If you choose to de-stubify this article, you will need to add additional material, including references. Once the article has been expanded, it will make sense to provide a lead section that summarizes its content. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm I fail to see the stub mark. I see {{lead missing}} rather than {{stub}}... Although the article is indeed small. It has a few references, and a standard template box. I don't really know the topic much and my interest is limited, but it may be that there would not be much more information to add; I suppose that an extended history section may be plausible. Would this then mean that the topic is not notable enough for the article to exist? I also of course mean in general, as I'm learning how to evaluate the quality of such random articles. In this case I will see if I can change it to look like an obvious stub, rather than as only missing a lead. Thanks again, PaleoNeonate (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I will simply use other notable articles on the same subject as examples to evaluate (i.e. on other churches in this case). PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Instert image with text

Hi, I have never insterted an image and i don't know how to do it, i want to insert the Pyramid of Argumentation with the text "please stay on the top three tiers" also, is this pyramid already in Wikimedia or do I have to upload it? --DashyGames (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey DashyGames. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for guidance on including images in articles. TimothyJosephWood 19:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I know your reviewers are overloaded...

But it has been a month, and the backlog has doubled during that time. Is it within reason to post provisionally pending review? Or is the process simply open-ended? The article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ZPEG. Thank you... Zpeg (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Zpeg. Thanks for writing an article! I'm not a reviewer, but I can tell you right now that it's probably going to get declined. It reads too much like an advertisement for Wikipedia's mainspace. In addition to that, I'd recommend splitting it into sections more suitable to an encyclopedia article. I'd also recommend reading the Manual of Style for info on how to format an article. MereTechnicality ⚙ 01:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe you should be a reviewer! Thanks for your comment, I was pretty careful to try to focus on the facts and the proven technology, I'll take a second look.Zpeg (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Zpeg: I've has a quick look at the draft, and a serious flaw is that it doesn't start by explaining what it's about. The first sentence reads "ZPEG is a motion video technology". But it doesn't say what this technology does. My guess is that ZPEG is a file format for videos. But the reader should not be left to guess. Maproom (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Great comment, maproom, very helpful. Thanks!Zpeg (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Zpeg:, welcome to Wikipedia and thankyou for you contribution!

I found this interesting, as I hadn't previously heard about pre-processing video for better compressibility, and also didn't know that people are using quantization on the time- or z- axes.

I'm not a reviewer and don't have direct experience with "articles for creation" (AfC in wikiparlance) nor "articles for deletion" (AfD), but I'd like to offer my observations.

I agree with Maproom that the scope of the draft seems a bit unclear on first reading: is it about the pre-processor, the perceptual model, a new quality metric, or a streaming format? The company website is focussed mostly on the pre-processor, but you're covering a wider set of applications.

I did start to get it after re-reading the first paragraph a few times. Maybe introducing it as "a technique" or "an approach" would be clearer than "a technology"? (I note that Westwater's patent for 3D-DCT resampling uses the term "method".) Or even "ZPEG is motion video technology that ..." would work.

It would help the reader to compare ZPEG to JPEG and MPEG, which use DCT with quantization to achieve lossy compression in 2D. Perhaps a diagram showing ZPEG as a cube, and MPEG as a stack of planes?

Moving on from tweaks to content, you'll have to be careful about disclosing "COI", Zpeg. Your username and apparent technical grasp suggest someone who is close to the subject.

But the biggest hurdle will be notability. There are great references in the draft, but few of them mention the term "ZPEG". I did find a paper by Khire, et al. [1], but they used "ZPEG" for something a bit different (DPCM rather than DCT in the z-direction?). I hope that one day ZPEG is as well-known as DivX or JPEG, as it looks promising.

Would you be interested to lend your expertise to an article on 3D compression generally or 3D-DCT specifically? Are there people other than Westwater working on the latter?

[I have adjusted the indentation above to reflect who is replying to what, I hope no-one minds.]

Pelagic (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

A side question about Draft space and Talk pages. I don't frequent Draft space, but poking around a few articles shows their talk pages are redlinks. Reviewers post their comments at the top of the draft, rather than in its Talk (probably for improved visibility). Yet Draft Talk seems like the perfect place to discuss issues like article scope and wording of the lead sentence mentioned above. Is the lack of talk simply because most drafts don't attract wide attention, or is it considered bad ettiquette to use draft talk (akin to prying in someone's unfinished business)?

Pelagic (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @Pelagic:, for your kind words. Your specific suggestions of how to clarify the introduction are most welcome, as is your suggestion for a perhaps more neutral topic (applications of the three-dimensional or time-varying DCT). And I would be happy to contribute such an article, or repurpose the existing article, if the powers that be at Wikipedia looked favorably on such a suggestion. But I have been unable to excite any interest in the topic so far (my account has been suspended without apparent recourse).

As far as COI goes, it was my intention (through choice of handle, for example) to make perfectly clear that I am indeed close to the topic, and anxious to embrace direction to guarantee neutrality of the contribution. My experience so far seems to be that there is no good way to promote discussion on this platform, perhaps as a result of the high demands being made on the reviewing community.74.196.107.157 (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles about parasitic diseases in humans and animals

I would like to greatly expand some articles on parasites of Tropical game herds. I keep being told different information, which seems more related to other editors having a sense of ownership of the articles than to any real policy. For example, I was told I had to add the information about non-human animals at the end of relevant sections to the article about the disease in humans, rather than the separate article, and that this was policy. Now that I point out the animal disease article already exists, the person is back peddling.

But I don't see any policy that says I have to do that in the first place. It would be ridiculous to add ten paragraphs on wildland herd immunities to the end of a section that doesn't exist in a human disease article that is much more sporadically and differently distributed in humans. It's like, okay, here's the disease in humans, now let me add nothing about this aspect than talk about the eastern and western game herd spreads and farm animal breeds. Humans are impacted by parasites in sometimes the same way, sometimes different ways than other animals. But if you have entire departments in dozens of countries and billions of dollars to study the disease in animals, you shouldn't force writers to add 20 paragraphs, spread out, as an afterthought, to the human disease.

I can't find the policy that says I have to write about animal parasites as an afterthought to humans. My edits are being reverted, and I am being lectured. The parasitology articles have large sections that are plagiarized. They need work. I am willing to do it. But I get told it's against policy, no it's not, yes it is, revert, go away.

And, no I will never ever try a user name again. So don't tell me it's easier with a user name.

I want to edit animal parasitology articles. I want to see the policy that is causing my edits to be reverted. Can anyone show me that?

2601:648:8503:4467:F090:EC3E:A4AD:A34C (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

We can't help explain why edits were reverted unless we can see the edits. Because you are using an IP address which has no other edits, it's hard to know what edits you are talking about.

In broad principle, you're right that a subject (such as an animal parasite) could warrant its own article, if there is enough information about it available in appropriate reliable sources.

And if there are sections that are copied from non-free sources, then indeed those need to be removed immediately.

However, in the above, I'm only seeing your side of the argument; I'd need to see the context of the discussion.

Therefore, please show us where you're having problems - which articles - and where this discussion has taken place, and then we can try to help. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I have been editing for a while now, and you're inviting me to be heavily scrutinized, criticized, and insulted for editing. No, I don't want my edits under a microscope. They've been fine. Every edit on Wikipedia requires 10 non editors to discuss it. Then, after being reverted, insulted, and criticized my edits usually stand, although sometimes with some English help.

If the policy that says animal medicine must be written as an after thought to human medicine cannot be found without criticizing, insulting, and scrutinizing everything I've done, maybe there is no such policy.

My side of the argument? How will engaging forever and ever on an argument, if one even existed, help to write an encyclopedia?

I have been writing about plant viruses. Plant editors correct my grammar. I want to write about animal African sleeping sickness. Animal editors revert everything. I am not asking you if enough sources exist. I already know the answer. I know how to add sources. I know how to weight sources. The topic is notable. I correspond with the governments of 43 nations that have agencies devoted to this disease in animals, not humans. I write about the animal disease. I don't want a user name. I don't care why. I don't need links to 5000 word essays about how to change the word "an" to "a" in Wikipedia. I am looking for the policy that says instead of including the disease in its own article that already exists, I have to add animal herd distributions at the appropriate section to the human article, as I have been reverted and told this is the policy. I read the medical articels manual of style, and it, like every wall of text thrown at me thus far, did not incoude the relevant information. And not just this article. I want to see the policy so I understand it with other game and domestic herd parasitology articles.

I also tried removing the plagiarized material, and that got reverted, and I was falsely told that you can't tell whether the source copied Wikipedia or vice versa, then it turned out that the Wikipedia user was known to have plagiarized articles all over Wikipedia and was banned for it. But I couldn't remove his stuff! No, there is no "must be removed immediately," even if Wikipedia aknowledges the plagiriam.

I want to see the policy that says animal diseases are just subsets of human diseases. I don't want to have every word I add criticized ten more times, along with all my actions, and discussions about my behavior in response to being treated so shabbily. I am just trying to find the policy. This was advertised as a friendly place to ask a question, but there is not much friendly about Wikipedia, when it comes to editing articles that people consider their personal turf, and your response sounds like you're gearing up to put me in my place (off Wikipedia), but I assure you others are already lined up for that.

I'd like to edit. 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:C4 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

There is (of course) no policy that says "animal disease info should be included in articles on the human version", or anything close to that. The relevent policies say (in essence) that we can have an article about any subject, as long as there in significant coverage of it in appropriate sources.

Policies are never that specific; there are not actually that many policies, and although there are a lot of guidelines, Wikipedia does not have hard and fast rules (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines). Each case is different, which is why I was asking for specifics.

The medical manual-of-style doesn't have much to say about this specific topic, except a mention that a disease article might have a section entitled "Other animals" in WP:MEDORDER - but it depends greatly on individual cases.

People often disagree about how subjects should be presented; the important thing is to keep a cool head, don't take it personally if someone reverts your edits, and discuss it with them. If you can't reach an agreement, there are various ways to seek further opinions.

I've no interest in whether or not you choose to get a user account - I'm not sure why you thought I would be. Note that I'm not logged in myself, either.

Re. "plagiarism" - that term can mean different things to different people. There's nothing wrong with copying from other sources IF AND ONLY IF a) the copyright allows it, and b) the information is appropriate for inclusion. Some articles include large amounts that are copied from public-domain sources, and that's fine. However, any material that is not copied to Wikipedia and is not appropriately licenced must be removed. You can get help with that at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

One way to deal with the animal/plant disease would be to use WP:SUMMARY STYLE - that is,

a) Have detailed info about the animal disease in a separate article,

b) in the "main" (human disease) article, have a brief summarized section about "In other animals" (or whatever) - probably just one paragraph or so - with code at the top saying {{Main|Foo disease in animals}} - which will look like this;

For example, see Epilepsy#Other_animals.

Hope that helps. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It is too common to be reverted based on policies that don't exist, and discussions usually don't help.

I have no question that the topic is notable enough for its own article, and I was trying to go about it in the way you suggest at the end, but another user has ownership issues with the article and came up with this:

"This is how we format articles about diseases per WP:MEDMOS.

We generally emphasize the human aspects of the condition and than have a section in the article for "other animals". If that section becomes large we than create a sub article. Unless of course the disease is primarily in other animals but not people.

We are not going to divide pneumonia into "pneumonia in humans" and "pneumonia in other animals" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yet the scientific world does. There are entire volumes and agencies devoted to both or one or the other.

Wikipedia has an article on Animal African trypanosomiasis (AAT), and the article on African sleeping sickness is clearly on Human African trypanosomiasis (HAT), so I wanted to add basic info on AAT, while at the same time directing users to the AAT article, when I got reverted and told I couldn't, because I had to add the info as an aside to HAT. There is no question that AAT has sufficient resources to expand its article, but users should be aware it exists in the HAT article. There are major differences in herd immunizations depending on the type of animal (domestic cattle versus game herds) that would crowd a section on human herd immunity because of the patchy distribution of the human disease.

I may now may have been green lighted to add the info to the other article, but not allowed to direct users there. I am not sure. The human disease articles seem to be "revert first, block, answer some questions later."

If you copy 97 words in a row of a 100 word text, changing 3 of them, the text is copyrighted to an individual without a CC or other sharable copyright 5, and you don't attribute the text anyhow, it's plagiarism. Even Wikipedia did an "investigation," found the user had extensively plagiarized, then blocked him for it, but left much of his plagiarized text. No one is arguing whether it's plagiarism, they're just blocking people from removing it, because of you remove a large block of text, you get put on some list where you get hounded by members of the vandal fighting club. I once removed fake text, got reverted and warned. So I left it. It was still there when I looked months later. I edit obscure articles, articles no one else is improving, and usually ones that don't attract many vandals, but the topics are highly technical, but the fake text was that printer place holder text.

Every one tells me I won't be reverted if I have a user name. Try to forestall that waste of time conversation.

If the policy doesn't exist, why do I have to edit according to it? It is annoying that established users do this to justify reversions. No one is improving the AAT article, or even the HAT article for that matter. But the the HAT article has ownership restrictions, and the owner won't allow me to edit it, or may have given permission, but I don't know. I am deeply frustrated. I made many improvements to plant articles for months, with help from plant editors. Now I try to improve animal and human disease articles and have to spend days fighting to change one typo.

Maybe I should write the AAT first, but it's a disservice to readers to let them think the HAT article is about both.

It's turned into a battle about something else, not writing articles.

2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:A1 (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

American or English?

Is there a designation on an article's page as to which version of English it uses? I am too lazy to determine this empirically.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Quisqualis, and welcome to the Teahouse. The variety of English to be used is determined by consensus. As always, it's useful to document consensus so that others don't have to guess. Accordingly, you can tag the talk page with e.g. Template:American English and the article itself with e.g. Template:Use American English. See template documentations for the equivalent templates for other varieties of English. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

How long is a whale's tongue

How long is a whale's tongue? 51.6.210.219 (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@51.6.210.219: The Teahouse is for Wikipedia-related questions. A better place to ask this would be Google, or Quora. The Verified Cactus 100% 01:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@51.6.210.219: You might also try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

how to insert an article/?

how do I post an article?105.112.35.144 (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Please read and study Your first article and return here to the Teahouse at any time if you have a more specific question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

User removed my addition because he appears to object to evolution

Hi there, I added a sentence under the Coprophagia page which gave some context as to why those with mental illness might exhibit coprophagia. (Gut microbiome disturbances are strongly associated with mental illness.)

I wrote: "It is possible this behaviour originates from an instinctive need to rebalance a dysbiotic gut microbiome, which is commonly associated with these conditions." doi=10.1038/mp.2016.50

It was removed by Jytdog who described it as "evolutionary speculative malarky". Yet further down the page the exact same reason is given for coprophagia in dogs (rebalancing their microbiome) and that has not been removed.

I would be happy to reword the sentence to remove the behaviour and instinct aspect so that readers can draw their own conclusions about the links between mental illness, coprophagia and the gut microbiome.

I feel that Jytdog may have a religious motivation for removing the edit, which I feel is inappropriate, as Wikipedia is not a religious text.

sincerely, Elizabeth 115.189.91.59 (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Elizabeth (115.189.91.59) and welcome to the Teahouse.

Here's a situation where the principle of "Assume good faith" almost certainly applies. Jytdog is well known for his insistence on very high quality sources on health and medical issues. Speculations about evolutionary connections are not going to pass muster. The fact that another speculation has made it into the article is no justification for adding one more. These speculations have to be well-tested and accepted by a broad range of the profession before they are suitable for Wikipedia. Where health and medical issues are involved, there's a long history of discussion where "letting the reader decide" has been decidedly rejected. For an introduction, try reading WP:MEDRS; you'll find more pointers on Jytdog's user page. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Improve Article

How is improve article in good article contribute and how to save copyright material i want know ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enaya Afzal (talk • contribs) 03:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello! You did not sign your question, so I don't know your name. Your question is somewhat unclear, perhaps because your first language is not English. I recommend that you use Google Translate to put your question into English. Use a lot of detail in your question so that we know what you mean.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Enaya Afzal and welcome to the Teahouse.

You've made an excellent start with your first article. Many of your early questions should be answered by reading the page Your first article. Creating a new article is a hard thing to do because the subject of your article has to be shown to be notable in the Wikipedia sense and that notability has to be demonstrated by multiple high-quality reliable sources. The other thing to watch out for is that you may not directly copy material from elsewhere to an article. Except for a few brief quotes, everything must be written in your own words. The Teahouse is here to help! jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

how can i get my personal wikipedia page created

how can i get my personal wikipedia page created? I have made a lot of strides and considers sharing the good, the bad and the ugly side of my life story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usman haruna yabagi (talk • contribs)

Hello, Usmqan haruna yabagi. I'm afriad the answer is that probably you don't. I think you are confusing Wikipedia with a social media platform. Wikipedia does not contain articles about everything and everybody, but only about subjects that are notable in Wikipedia's special sense - that is, subjects which have been written about in reliable independent publications.

Furthermore, Wikipedia strongly discourages writing about yourself, because it is difficult for most people to write about themselves in a suitably neutral manner. If you meet the criteria for notability, then somebody could write an article about you; but it should not be you that writes it. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible deletion?

Previously, I have been impressed with the quick responses from Wikipedia staff when I needed help. I received a notice that the article "Intellectual Bigot / Intellectual Bigots, may be removed. Naturally I would be disappointed if that occurred. I presented that article with the intent of a broader perspective about bigotry, that expanded the traditional view. Are there suggestions for me to improve the article? I have read the guidelines, etc., and, I thought I did a fair objective perspective as a learning experience for the reader. Thank you in advance for your advice. Bruce Metzger. Bruce Metzger (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bruce Metzger. It looks like you've put a lot of work into the article, but unfortunately it appears to read much more like a college essay or personal reflection than an encyclopedia article, and seems to incorporate a great deal of your own individual opinions and views on the sources rather than only presenting those of the sources themselves without commentary.

Some of the content may be appropriate to incorporate into existing articles since is seems to overlap conceptually with a number of topics, such as Prejudice, Ideology, and Bigotry, but it's not clear that "intellectual bigotry" itself as a term has been used sufficiently to justify its own Wikipedia article. TimothyJosephWood 18:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Wikipedia, being an encyclopaedia is not - ever - a publisher of new ideas or new syntheses, Bruce Metzger. An article that seeks to "expand the traditional view" is never going to be accepted. (One that summarises reliably published sources that "expand the traditional view" might be). --ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have created "links" to other sources within Wikipedia, as suggested, for "Intellectual Bigot / Intellectual Bigotry" which should help readers. The edit should provide a wider interest, regardless whether the article is labeled "opinion." Bruce Metzger (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bruce Metzger, in its current form, the article is unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is, simply, an essay, written in essay style, with a focus on synthesis and your interpretations, and hardly any sources. Adding crosslinks to other articles won't help. Compare with other articles on sociological concepts, e.g. (taken at random) Prejudice. Can you see the differenec in scope, style, and sourcing? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Missvain

Can you please take a look at this proposition; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Coffee_Shop_University Cheers Ducati-2007 (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ducati-2007. Definitely the first thing that jumps out about the draft is that it doesn't include any inline citations, which are required to verify the contents. You may want to check out our tutorial on referencing at Help:Referencing for beginners. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Will check this out Timothy, thanks for pointing it out. Still a learner here, but learning quickly :) Ducati-2007 (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Still a learner here? Heck, after several years, I still haven't managed to figure out how to get past that stage! TimothyJosephWood 13:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(Tongue-in-cheekish). Also see Wikipedia:Levels of competence. Lectonar (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

What to do with ancient references when updating an article?

Hi again. I'm going to be updating a molecular genetics article. One of the few references it cites is from the dark ages of 1997. I know there is a much more recent paper which has more details about the specific topic. Is it customary to simply delete the 1997 reference entirely, or leave it as an additional reference in addition to the newer one? My preference would be to delete the old one entirely, since anybody who is super interested in the topic could read the new article and find the old one referenced there. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DennisPietras. I don't know anything about the specific subject matter, but if there's a way to update the article content that allows both the old and new reference to be used, then it seems like the old one should be kept. Perhaps the references can be used to show how the thinking on the matter has changed. Otherwise, it seems like a editorial decision where you can either be bold and make the improvements you deem necessary, or cautious and start a discussion about them on the article's talk page. As long as you leave a proper edit sum (perhaps supplemented by something on the article's talk page if necessary), then there's nothing really wrong with being bold. If by chance you're reverted, then simply follow WP:BRD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DennisPietras (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Question about Corrections

Hi,

I made a correction to a name spelling in an article. The spelling on the name was incorrect in the source article, however the attached court documents on the article have the correct spelling. There are also several other news articles that have the correct spelling. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I'm not sure where the appropriate place to have a discussion about this is. I don't want to just revert the person who changed my correction, but I wasn't sure if this was better on the article talk page or on the editor's page. Thanks for any help! Kat Cheez 20:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If reliable sources differ on the spelling, then the article should list all the spellings, and may note that different documents use different spellings. It should not make any attempt to resolve the disagreement, and especially should not draw any conclusions as to which is correct. (It may quote or summarise an independent reliably published source which does draw such a conclusion). --ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Katcheez: You changed Glen Scorr to Glen Scott in [2]. I can find many sources saying Glen Scorr or Glenn Scott but none with your spelling. Which attached court documents on the article do you refer to? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Oh shoot, that's my fault, I was just trying to switch the last name and made an additional mistake.

On the Huffington Post article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/21/ann-rule-sons-theft_n_7111854.html) that is referenced, there are attached court documents that identify Glenn Scott as the witness. That was also how I found it spelled in two local papers that covered the crime. (http://archive.seattleweekly.com/news/958887-129/seattleland-author-ann-rules-newest-crime and http://www.highlinetimes.com/2015/04/23/front-page/two-sons-ann-rule-have-been-charged-abusing). I wanted to know where the appropriate place to have this conversation was, or if I should just leave it as it was prior to my edit. Kat Cheez 21:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Katcheez: The article talk page, in this case Talk:Ann Rule, is the normal place to discuss article content since others can see it there. I have mentioned both spellings with sources in the article.[3] If there are no objections then a talk page discussion isn't necessary. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Elmdae, and patience from others that have responded to my persistence. In the article's present form, I thought "maybe" a brief acceptance. Possibly I will rewrite it. Bruce Metzger (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I cite a documentary in an article?

If so, how? The Verified Cactus 100% 01:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, VerifiedCactus if it's a reliable source. You can use a template like Template:Cite AV media. It's useful to provide the time at which the documentary presents support for the content you are using it as reference for. If you want to cite the documentary multiple times, consider using short citations. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Finnusertop. I was wondering if I could also do citations in the style of the little superscripted numbers in the actual article itself (I have no idea what they are called). The Verified Cactus 100% 16:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean footnoted inline references in general, or Template:Rp VerifiedCactus? I wouldn't use Template:Rp since the documentation says it should be used for pages, not other source locations.

I've cited documentaries a few times. If you want to take a look at how I've done it, see Canaan Hymns#cite note-FOOTNOTEThe Canaan_Hymns200314:00-12 and Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea#cite note-FOOTNOTEVICE News201516:00.E2.80.9316:40-22 – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Need for confidentiality

I want a question answered but in posing it I might have to reveal my identity in real life. How can I get it answered without doing so? Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: you can always email into the OTRS team info-en

wikimedia.org with your question and they will answer if they can. All OTRS correspondence is confidential and the volunteers who work OTRS have signed the WMF confidentiality agreement. Nthep (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Harroagte taekwond academy National press & TV

taekwond academy

National press

harrogate advertiser Uk

This newspaper and its website is a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation,

http://www.harrogateadvertiser.co.uk/sport/martial-arts/taekwondo-academy-claim-medal-haul-in-rotterdam-1-5761332

‘Harrogate Road’ sign officially unveiled in South Korea capital

http://www.ripongazette.co.uk/news/watch-harrogate-road-sign-officially-unveiled-in-south-korea-capital-1-7189265

http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2016-12-07/harrogate-taekwondo-club-to-hold-international-events/

http://www.northyorkshiresport.co.uk/news/2016/02/harrogate-based-taekwondo-master-nominated-for-yorkshire-choice-award

http://www.britishtaekwondo.org.uk/news/page/9/

Paulboll (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Paulboll. It's not entirely clear which article you are referring to, or what your question is. So I'm afraid you'll have to be a bit more specific for us to help. TimothyJosephWood 12:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional threads on the same topic.

K.R.Ali Taekwondo Academy Wikipedia calls notability

Wikipedia calls notability , K.R.Ali Taekwondo Academy club i need to check if the club has been in books and major uk news papaers . i will check.

Thanks Paulboll (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks i new to this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulboll (talk • contribs) 13:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

K.R.Ali Taekwondo Academy artcle

K.R.Ali Taekwondo Academy if you're going to make comments please read and give advice.

Paulboll (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I was pointing out that the club had featured in the press & tv links, the stories i found are local.

To north yourkshire England & one from south korea

so does not fit with Wikipidia notability. sorry Paulboll (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Paulboll. First off, you should post your replies in this same thread, rather than making separate threads for each reply, since this can be hard to follow and clutters up the page for others who are asking and answering questions.

Looking at the sources, I would say that the problem you are going to run into is that they appear to be mostly from very local media, and in order to help demonstrate notability, you are probably going to need to find at least one regional, national, or international source to indicate that the organization has a wider significance. Similarly, while the British Taekwondo source is apparently national, it has a very limited scope of coverage, which limits how useful it is for determining notability.

Other's may disagree, and that's kindof the way things work around here. Notability is not really a decision made by one person, so much as it is a decision reached by the community, who more often than not, don't 100% agree with one another, but reach a rough consensus anyway. You may want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article which may help answer a lot of questions that are sure to come up. TimothyJosephWood 13:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on what User:Timothyjosephwood, said above on notability international source,

i had another look on the british taekwondo site, which is a international source

notability the Harrogate taekwondo club feature on the british taekwondo home page.

What is British Taekwondo? British Taekwondo (WTF) Limited, known as British Taekwondo, was established in 1982 and is the Governing Body for WTF Taekwondo in the United Kingdom. British Taekwondo is a member of the WTF and the British Olympic Association (BOA). Only through British Taekwondo can athletes participate in any WTF and ETU sanctioned event, including, G1, G2, European Championships, World Championships and Olympic Games.

http://www.britishtaekwondo.org.uk/about-us/

also they have several articles plublished by british taekwondo

http://www.britishtaekwondo.org.uk/?s=Harrogate+taekwondo+club

Does this not quilfy notability? or is more evidence required.

Let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulboll (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Paulboll. Instead of posting every source you find here for review, it would probably be a better use of your time to start a draft, for example, in your sandbox, and add sources to the draft as you find them. Then someone can look over the draft when you think you might be finished. TimothyJosephWood 15:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry still new to this ok will.

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulboll (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi All,

I was hoping to write a wikipedia article on K.R.Ali Taekwondo Academy ,I have edited a few articles, but not wrote one up before. i want to know if it worthy of an article, as i didn't want to do a write up to have it deleted, so i am looking for pre approval, this is a Taekwondo club based in Harrogate England,it was setup over 10 years ago,

Long justification (or perhaps proposed article text)

the club has had great success, winning competitions & producing several champions over the years and are the current 2016 National Poomsae Champions, bit of history, March 2006, Harrogate entered five students, and achieved two gold, one silver and two bronze medals,24th British Open Championship in October 2006, Harrogate TTA, achieved a medal haul of four Gold, seven Silver and eight Bronze. Harrogate was 3rd TTA overall in UK and 2nd TTA in England. 20th TTA British Team Championship in April 2007, eleven students won four Gold, five Silver and two Bronze. The 25th British Individual Championships on October 28, 2007, in Glasgow,19 medals, 2008 21st TTA British Team Championship in April 2008, eleven students won Two gold, four silver and eight bronze. The Blue Belt team also won the coveted trophy for Best Team Spirit. 2009 has start where 2008 left off with Instructor Kambiz R Ali coaching the team to great success in the 22nd T.T.A Team Championship winning 6 Gold, 11 Silver and 6 Bronze Medals,29th TTA British Individual Championships in Oct 2011 earning 18 medals including five Gold, three silver and ten bronze, Founder K.R.Ali, picked up the trophy for Best Team Spirit on behalf of the team, This success meant Harrogate was 3rd TTA overall in UK for 2011. In Jun 2012, K.R.Ali Taekwondo Academy joined forces with several other clubs from the UK to represent the ‘British Taekwondo Combined’ team at the 9th Dutch Masters International Championship, held in Rotterdam, (Netherlands). The team managed by Master Brian Titley won the overall team of the tournament and Master Titley accepted the trophy on behalf of the team. 15 Jul 2012 , Master K.R.Ali 5th Dan black belt returned to competitive Taekwondo win a bronze medal in this very competitive event.

Master K.R.Ali won a Bronze medal at 2016 World Taekwondo Hanmadang Aug 2016

With the Nations eyes on Rio for the 2016 Olympics, Master Kambiz R.Ali 6th Dan packed his bags to take the trip to Seoul in South Korea for his third consecutive year.

Official Taekwondo Hall of Fame invitation for Master K.R.Ali 2015

K.R.Ali Taekwondo Academy club honored in july 2015 name change in South Korea to road renamed ‘Harrogate Road’

South Korean Capital Seoul, like Dubong –Gu which now has a ‘Harrogate Road’. Jung-Gu is Seoul’s oldest district and is the current residing place for the Korean President in the ‘Blue House’. Historically the district boasts one of the five Palaces of the Joseon Dynasty. There are multiple parks and Museums within the district, most notable is the Museum of Art. The district also houses Korea’s banking and financial areas as well as Seoul’s City Hall.

Master K.R.Ali's letter of commendation from Harrogate Mayor

Team Harrogate TKD

Team Harrogate K.R.Ali Taekwondo Academy become 2016 National Poomsae Champions in Nottingham

Posted on 15th November 2016

Harrogate K.R.Ali Taekwondo Academy is celebrating it’s major success at the Taekwondo Poomsae nationals held in Nottingham this weekend. Master Kambiz R.Ali, founder of Harrogate taekwondo acadamy, 3rd Dan black belt Ghazal R.Ali and 2nd Dan black belt Martin Squires offered their years of experience and support to Harrogate’s team of 18 players

http://www.britishtaekwondo.org.uk/2016/11/team-harrogate-k-r-ali-taekwondo-academy-become-2016-national-poomsae-champions-nottingham/

The club will see 3rd Harrogate International Open Poomsae seminar with Grandmaster Ik Pil Kang 8th dan form South Korea. 27th -28th may 20017

https://www.facebook.com/events/1062646970450106/?active_tab=about

On Monday the 29th May 2017. K.R.Ali Taekwondo Academy will hold the 1st Harrogate Mayor Cup International Open Poomsae Championships.

This is to be held at the Rossett Sports Centre, Harrogate H on (May Bank Holiday)

Mayor Hosts Cultural exchange (Oct 2016) http://harrogatetaekwondo.co.uk/news/103/

This event was facilitated by Master Kambiz R.Ali 6th Dan from Harrogate and Master Lee 7th Danbased in Seoul. Who with the support of British Taekwondo Chief Executive Officer, Mark Aberlly.

http://harrogatetaekwondo.co.uk/Master%20K.R.Ali https://www.facebook.com/Harrogate.taekwondo/

Harrogate TKD Club has taken part in twelve National and International TTA competitions

Harrogate taekwondo club featured on ITV News

14th December 2016

http://www.britishtaekwondo.org.uk/2016/12/harrogate-taekwondo-club-featured-itv-news/

Harrogate Taekwondo Club were recently featured on ITV News across North Yorkshire. The feature was to showcase the club hosting an international seminar and Mayor Cup International Open in May 2017 at the Rosset Sports Centre.

The events have been organised by the Harrogate Tae Kwon Do Academy founder and Sixth Dan Black Belt Kambiz R Ali, who formed the club more than a decade ago.

You can watch the news clip here.

Featured on tv in the uk

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg1ZGzWITAh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd7uOhLr0sw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB7OsBNV5eM

Any help would be great. if its a yes any help in creating this page would also be great.

Regards

PaulPaulboll (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Paulboll. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to read through your long submission and evaluate it. What I will do is give you some pointers. You can find a summary at WP:42.

The things to realise are:

The basic criterion for being accepted as an article is not fame, or importance, or popularity, or significance, or influence: it is simply whether or not the subject has been covered in depth by people unconnected with it, in reliable publications such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers: that is what Wikipedia calls notability. There is likely to be some correlation with those qualities I listed, but some important or significant topics haven't had that sort of coverage, and vice versa.
Nothing that the subject or its employees or associates have said or published can have any bearing on its notability.
Notability is not inherited: a club is not notable because some of its prominent personnel are notable, or vice versa.
Nothing on social media can contribute to notability
Very little on YouTube can contribute to notability - only official postings from reputable publishers like major newspapers.

I haven't looked as any of the references you mention above; but judging from their URL's, not one is from an independent reliable source. You need to find such references if you are to get an article accepted.

I suggest you read WP:your first article.

One final point: if you go ahead and write an article about the club, it will be helpful if you drop the idea that you are doing so "for the club". An article about a club is in no sense "for" the club. It is a neutral article about the club, based almost entirely on what independent published sources say about the club, whether those sources are "for" or "against" (or neither, of course). In fact, if you are associated with the club, you need also to be aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on writing with a conflict of interest. --ColinFine(talk) 11:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Paulboll - Please do not refactor (alter) your post after it has been answered - removing "i am doing this article for the club if approved" makes ColinFine's reply to your post difficult/impossible to understand, and appears that you may be trying to hide your conflict of interest - Arjayay (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Only removed because he asked me to - Paulboll (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Paulboll You weren't asked to remove the text, but to "drop the idea that you are doing so "for the club"". - Arjayay (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

ok my misunderstanding sorry Paulboll (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on what was said on notability, i had a look on the british taekwondo site

who are international source

notability the Harrogate taekwondo club feature on the british taekwondo home page.

http://www.britishtaekwondo.org.uk/about-us/

also they have several articles plublished by british taekwondo

http://www.britishtaekwondo.org.uk/?s=Harrogate+taekwondo+club

Does this not quilfy notability? or is more evidence required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulboll (talk • contribs) 15:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Paulboll: please read the advice you have been given. Don't keep dropping individual references to the club on this page and ask someone to assess notability. Create a draft article in your sandbox and then ask for a review. Piecemeal like you are doing helps nobody as there isn't the context to set it against. Nthep (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Paulboll. Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability for some more specific information regarding the notability for martial arts groups. It's also a good idea to ask what the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts think. If the K.R.Ali Taekwondo Academy is Wikipedia notable, I'm pretty sure a member of that WikiProject would be happy to help write an article about it. Anyway, I've posted a message at WT:MARTIAL#K.R.Ali Taekwondo Academy notability question asking for help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks ive done a sand box submit as well Paulboll (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Need a Review of an article

Hello, looking for someone to review an article that I am writing. It is about the economies of latin America and will be added to the Wikipedia page on Latin America and is currently in my sandbox. Would appreciate some critiques!

Danicroi (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Danicroi. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners. What is immediately obvious in the draft is that it is not making use of our inline citations facilities to verify its content, but rather you are using "home made" footnotes, placing, e.g., "[13]" in the text, rather than coding at that point <ref>transparent citation text</ref> or some other system which automatically numbers and calls the citations. I have not looked at anything else in the draft, because citing sources (or the lack thereof) is generally the number one issue from which everything flows. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Collapsable Table examples are wrong

I had problems attempting to create a collapsible table because almost none of the examples given work. (It seems that the property names have changed) I did get it to work (hit and guess, look at pages that do work, etc.)

The question is: How do I report this? Those example pages are not editable. Nor would I propose to edit them, since I don't know the correct answers. BriarFox (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi BriarFox The examples in Help:Table and Help:Collapsing work tjust fine for me. They collapse a table so that just the header row is visible. From your sandbox it seems that you want to hide the table as well as collapse it so that just the table caption is visible. The tables your sandbox examples don't have captions, Try

Caption
Name	Score
John	59
Bob	72

StarryGrandma (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops, look at

Long Table Caption
Name	Score
John	59
Bob	72

StarryGrandma (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

BriarFox, the captions get weird because the software assumes the hidden table is very thin. Fix this by putting the caption inside a "nowrap" temolate:

Long Table Caption
Name	Score
John	59
Bob	72

StarryGrandma (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@BriarFox: There are several pages about collapsible tables. Please always link a page you refer to. If you do that and say what you think is wrong then we can better help. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)