Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 627

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 620←Archive 625Archive 626Archive 627Archive 628Archive 629Archive 630

Amiibo Pictures

Vinnylospo (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Hi. I tried to create a gallery of the images of the amiibo. However, after I made my second image and went to bed, the next day, I noticed how it was not there, and it stated how apparently it is not needed. I don't understand why. I mean this is a site where anyone can edit. All I wanted to do was show people all of the images of the amiibo. I believe this is necessary. Can you please help me out, and try to allow them to add the images on there, please. I would greatly appreciate it. :)Vinnylospo (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Vinnylospo. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, which can be a big difference from just being a generic "site" that anyone can edit. For example, Wikipedia is not a generic repository of images, and images here should be used to support encyclopedic content in an article. There is howeverWikimedia Commons which is a generic repository of images, and as long as your images are in the public domain, or licensed for public use, they're welcome there.
If you check out Commons:Category:Amiibo it looks like there's already a category set up for the company, and I've added a link at the bottom of the article. So readers who are interested in related images ought to go there, and that's where these images should be added, that is, if they're not copyrighted, which I would hasten to add out that images of characters like Mario are almost always going to be. TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Updating the "Institute Ranking" info box.

How does one update the "Institute Ranking" info box to reflect the current rankings of a business school. For example, this business schools page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Management_Studies_(Delhi).Metalpriest (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Metalpriest, welcome to the Teahouse. The source when you edit says {{Infobox India university ranking .... This means that Template:Infobox India university ranking is used. See the documentation there. Come back with a more specific question if you still have problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I updated the "Rankings" section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Management_Studies_(Delhi) to reflect the latest rankings. However, I wanted to add these rankings to the "Institute rankings" info-box displayed beside it. I came across this page earlier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_India_university_ranking, but couldn't understand how I could add the new rankings through that infobox.Metalpriest (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Metalpriest: Your recent edit [1] added a Times of India ranking. A template call can only use existing template parameters. Template:Infobox India university ranking does not currently have a parameter for Times of India. I don't know the importance of Indian rankings but you could suggest it at Template talk:Infobox India university ranking. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I edit a draft Wikipedia Page name

I want to rename my draft from "Draft:1902 Software Development Corporation" to "Draft:1902 Software Development". Note that this is only a draft. Please help. Thanks!Pam wiki2017 (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done, though the name of a draft never really matters. If the draft is one day reviewed and accepted as an article, the reviewer will choose a name for the article. Maproom (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I hope you can review my draft as well, before I publish it. I'm planning to add pictures, is that okay? Or is it better to keep it simple / don't have pictures, since it's only a short article? Looking forward to your advice^^ 00:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pam wiki2017 (talk • contribs)

Fair use for pictures of amiibo.

Vinnylospo (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)For my pictures, it says stuff with fair use. Can you please help me out?Vinnylospo (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

There's already one nonfree image in that article (and one that looks nonfree but seems inappropriately marked as free, which I'll shortly nominate for deletion on Commons). One is enough to show what the art style looks like, and if you were thinking of replacing that one, I would say that having an image showing several figures is probably superior to only a single one. Since the image is unused, and there's probably no appropriate use for it, it will be deleted for that reason. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

What is this category about?

In Johannes Goropius Becanus, I noticed a few categories listed whose names made no sense to me (I have "Show hidden categories" set):

Curious, I went to Category:Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers, but there was nothing helpful there. I searched for articles with GND identifiers, and it led me to Wikipedia:Authority control#Linked catalogs, where I learned that GND is an authority file for the German National Library and partner institutions— at least, I think that's what

GND (German National Library and partner institutions)

means— and similarly for the others.

I started to add a brief sentence of explanation (basically copied from Wikipedia:Authority control#Linked catalogs and somewhat rearranged) to the GND category page, but realized I didn't know enough about these categories to be sure I wouldn't mess something up. Thus, this question: Would it be appropriate and useful to add such information to this and similar category pages?

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Babel for dialects

Are there any babel userboxes for local/regional languages, e.g. asi language? JethRoad the FactBoy 13:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jeth888: Not that I know of, but see Wikipedia:Userboxes for instructions on making your own. It's not that hard.
PS: Since seeing this question I've been working on Asi language. See Talk:Asi language.
--Thnidu (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan actor

Youtube by sarwan khan palijo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarwankhanpalijo18 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sarwankhanpalijo18: What's your point? Do you want a page made about your posts on YouTube? Forget it, unless they're notable by the Wikipedia definition. Do you want to make a page about yourself? Forget that too: on Wikipedia, autobiography is a conflict of interest, which is strongly discouraged to say the least. --Thnidu (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I make text in an infobox turn into a link that leads to another Wikipedia page. Goaliepowers (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I was editing the Nike inc. infobox, and I wanted to add that their industry was also with sports equipment. Then I realized that the other industries were links, and they led to other articles (example: the apparel link led to the apparel page). How do I make the sports equipment one do that to???Goaliepowers (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Just put square brackets round the words, like the others. In this case, it would result in a redirect, so it would be better to change it to Sports equipment. Try it out for yourself. Dbfirs 06:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Cowboys-Packers rivalry

Vinnylospo (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)How do you think my first article is coming along? Do you have any suggestions?Vinnylospo (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Convenience link: Cowboys–Packers rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maproom (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Import my Original content from my webpage to Wikipedia

On our webpage we have a lot of original content regarding small villages in Greece. We created a wikipedia page for one of them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zemeno) and we copy pasted the content and cited it to the source. After the review we have a warning that the content is copy pasted. It is, but the original content is ours as well.

What is the right way to go by with all this content we want to add to wikipedia?

Thank you in advance.YallouGreece (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi YallouGreece. Because of the way it is licenced, Wikipedia can't use content from elsewhere unless that content is available under a similar free licence. You can allow Wikipedia to copy your content by following the steps outlined at donating copyrighted material, but be aware that in doing so, you will be making the content of your website freely available for anybody to use, for any purpose - not just Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲水 07:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Aid for Infobox

Is there any method to add Infoboxes to articles by using some template or some other thing without copying and pasting from other articles? Thanks

Sinner (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes - all infoboxes are a type of template. If you type "Template:Infobox" into the Search bar, you'll see a list of some of those available, or you can go to Category:Infobox templates for the full list. Each template contains a set of parameters, listed on the template page, that you can use to add information, and most also contain examples. Yunshui 雲水 07:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Username Signature Questions

I have been trying to make myself a unique signature to sign my posts with for wikipedia. I have been trying to do t on my css page but it just won't work. Its always coming up with some sort of error, can anyone help? Looking forward to a reply McStyx 18:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

One thing to note is that I have looked at the tutorial but I cant understand a thing

McStyx (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I replied on your talk. If you need more help I can give you a further walk through. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I would love some info on this too. Could you maybe post the same info on my talk page? Thanks! RDvor (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi RDvor. The posts are at User talk:McStyx/Archive 1#Your Teahouse question but some of it is specific to McStyx. There are links to the general pages: "You can read more about signatures at Wikipedia:Signatures and Wikipedia:Signature tutorial". PrimeHunter (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Request: Review - World Café article

In my sandbox I've played around with a slightly amended version of the World Café article, mainly trying to explain what these entail. I also added that these events are used by a variety of organisations, although refrained from listing these, which was a criticism of a previous version of the World Café article. I wondered if you would mind casting your eye over this draft version to see if it would be acceptable in the main space? David Biddulph, ColinFine,  DGG, Justlettersandnumbers Fbell74 (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

And you have once again failed to declare your paid connection to that page when discussing it, Fbell74. For the third time, declaration is obligatory, not optional. This page is for new editors who have questions about how to edit Wikipedia. I suggest you post your request at WP:COIN. Your first sentence will be "I am paid by [person] to edit the article on World Café." Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Fbell74: the contents of your sandbox are derived from World Café, which is the work of many editors, but does not give them due credit for their contributions. As it stands it ought to be deleted as a copyright violation. You could remedy this by putting a statement in the sandbox, stating that it is derived from World Café. Maproom (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Justlettersandnumbers - When I wrote the post I had in mind the individuals who had contributed already, including yourself, who obviously would have been aware that I was a paid contributor. As this had been covered before I hadn’t included a declaration in the post. But, seeing Maproom’s message I realise that other editors might also contribute, who wouldn’t have seen the previous thread. That was my mistake.
Just to avoid any confusion, I am a paid contributor.
Maproom - absolutely. I was using the sandbox as a way of adding amendments to the actual article without actually making changes to the article itself. I thought it was better to make these changes in the sandbox rather than in the main space, and then ask people to have a look and see what they thought. I didn’t mean to give the impression that the content was created by myself. If the changes are okay then these can be added to the article proper, which contains the contributor history, Fbell74 (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I contest a "speedy deletion" tag?

I have tried to create a fairly dry article on a contemporary female painter, Elizabeth Colomba, and it has been rejected twice. How do I contest a "speedy deletion"? When I click on the page, it reverts to a blank article. Thank you

!Moniquelong (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Moniquelong: Hello and welcome. It appears that the article has already been deleted; only an administrator can view it once it is deleted. An article tagged for speedy deletion can be deleted without delay if the reviewing administrator feels the criteria has been met. To contest a speedy deletion, there is a large blue button in the tag which states "Contest this deletion"; if you click it, it will bring up a page to edit where you can post your reason for contesting, which once you save it will appear on the article talk page. Further replies should be posted directly to that page.
Regarding the page itself, it seems to have been deleted because it seemed to be promotional in nature. Since I cannot see it I can't tell you exactly what was promotional about it, but the deleting administrator must have felt it was. If you click on the link to your (now-deleted) article, a red box should appear where it tells you who deleted it; if you click the 'talk' next to their name you can ask them specifically what the issue was. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I see that you've created Draft:Elizabeth Colomba and submitted it for review, Moniquelong, so there's no reason to also be creating an article at Elizabeth Colomba. If and when the drafted is accepted, it will be moved there. Note that the draft will be declined in its current state, though, as the majority of its content is unsourced. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Moniquelong, I just looked at the deleted version of the article. Text such as Elizabeth Colomba’s romantic, lyrical portraiture is inspired by history, mythology, and the feminine sacred in which she employs classical techniques in order to interrupt familiar historical narratives. By mixing traditional academic painting with inherently black signifiers including references to her own Caribbean heritage, she has developed a new visual language to include black subjectivity and its attendant histories into the canon. is quite promotional in my view, as well as being unsourced opinion. This would perhaps be appropriate for a signed review, but not for a Wikipedia article. The deletion was quite in accord with Wikipedia's policies and practices. However, with the draft, there is a chance to get the text into good shape without worrying so much about possible deletion along the way. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Moniquelong, I just looked at the draft. I see that the same promotional language is present there. Please remove it. Please use proper inline citations for facts supported by sources. See Referencing for Beginners and WP:CITE. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I was doing some anti-vandalism and by mistake reverted an edit on a "talk page" Talk:James_Comey (even though it does look like vandalism). However, I undid my revert, so could anybody say if I did it correctly? Thank You. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you wanted to reverse your original edit, that is OK. The edit which you had originally reverted could be regarded as unconstructive, as it isn't in coherent English, but the intent may not have been malicious so perhaps not proven to be vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I suspect the material you removed and then restored was machine-translated, maybe from Russian judging by its creator's name. Anyway, you restored it correctly. Maproom (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

NFL lists template

Hi. I am trying to put the link of my second article (which is still a work in progress) called 2016 NFL quarterbacks win–loss records and I am trying to update the current season on that template into the 2017 season. However, even though I updated it, and added the link to my new page, it doesnt seem to be showing up on anything outside of my qb page. Can you please help me out? Thanks.Vinnylospo (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Vinnylospo, and welcome to the Teahouse. {{NFL lists}} does now include a link to 2016 NFL quarterbacks win–loss records. To see it, you must "Show" the section labeled "Quarterbacks" -- the second section. By default this seems to be Collapsed, with only the section title displayed. Once the section is expanded, the link is in the bottom line of the section, at the far right. It may take time before other articles that use the template show the new version. This is done behind the scenes, by the job queue. The various articles that transclude the template should be up to date soon. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Weird question about RFC

Once an RFC is closed, is it acceptable for an involved editor to re-open the RFC, change the outcome, and then re-close it? For example, imagine an RFC was closed appropriately (after the requisite 30 days and comments from other editors) by an uninvolved administrator or volunteer with the comment RFC has been closed with a strong consensus to add xyz detail. Would it be acceptable for an editor involved in that RFC (one who had voted), to reopen the RFC, immediately change the result so it said RFC has been closed with a strong consensus to REMOVE xyz detail (with the edit summary comment "I disagree with this closure and am changing it") and then immediately re-close the RFC now with an entirely different result? I realize we are supposed to ignore all rules, but the wikipedia I remember has changed a great deal. Something like this I just don't think would have happened 5 or 10 years ago. Is the above simply an example of being bold, or I am correct in thinking this is pretty egregious behavior and should t least be brought to someones attention (whose I have no idea) 23.114.214.45 (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP Editor. That would be, in my view, drastically inappropriate behavior, on several grounds. It might well be grounds for a block of the editor changing the close. This would be true even for an UNinvolved editor, and doubly so for an involved editor. If this is not a hypothetical case, could you please provide a link? Or send me one by email if you prefer. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
user:DESiegel Here is the link to the reversion per your request. Here is the link to the editor changing the outcome. Just an FYI, the situation has been handled, I reverted it back. I was more curious if this was something that was appropriate or not. It was frustrating to me because I was also involved in the RFC, and I went through the proper channels when I had a question about the closure. Then to see someone unilaterally change the result of the RFC when they disagreed with it - well that didn't sit well with me. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
user:DESiegel Curious if you had a chance to look at the edits. I might be involved in another RFC and wanted to make sure that this was indeed something that is frowned upon, or at the very least discouraged. On the other hand, if the edit falls within the policies of Wikipedia I apologize for suggesting that something improper was done. Cheers. 2600:1012:B02B:5986:B88B:FC24:9E8C:BE42 (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I did look at the edits. I was, in fact, tempted to take the matter to WP:ANI. But since the original close had been restored, and you indicated no desire to proceed further, i decided not to do so. This sort of change of a close by another editor is very unusual in my 10+ years of Wikipedia experience. I do not think it was appropriate. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to the matter. To be frank I was willing to let the whole thing go (and to some extent still am) except for the fact that ArtW has essentially made me a target for his wrath, going so far as to harangue the volunteer who closed the RFC (see his user page). If the reverted closure is an offense that you personally feel should be reported to ANI please do so (I don't even know how). On the other hand if you think it better to let sleeping dogs lie, I'll defer to your judgement either way. Keep in mind this editor (ArtW) has a history of tenditious and aggressive editing, particular toward those who don't know the system as well as he does. Like I said Ieave the decision in your capable hands and won't pursue it any further if you feel that is best. 2600:1012:B02B:5986:B88B:FC24:9E8C:BE42 (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

UTC)

Hello, user:DESiegel. As there is a discussion at ANI, I would really appreciate your assistance and input. 2600:1012:B02E:7AAA:7166:FA50:5B2E:2766 (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
user:DESiegel I understand you are busy with the Teahouse and other responsibilities. All I am looking for is an admin to step in on this discussion and explain what really happened. Should I go elsewhere for assistance? Thank you for your help thus far. 2600:1012:B01B:6D00:DC4E:1497:F42E:EF8A (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Should a category such as Category:Alkenes include any compound with an alkene functional group or should it only contain hydrocarbons?

I'm wondering if more inclusive definitions should be used, or if I should create new categories using more exclusive definitions. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi OrganoMetallurgy take a look at what articles are currently in the category and follow suit. If it's not clear enough the best place to discuss the issue is WT:WikiProject Chemistry as that's where the topic specialist can be found. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I meant more generally as well. I suspect such category ambiguity exists elsewhere as well and was wondering if there was any standard way of dealing with it. I was also wondering if there are any reasons why I shouldn't split such categories up into more specific categories.OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Why was my article declined?

My article was declined. Why??? Cacox (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The note left on your user talk page states "This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you." - I think that's a good start. From clicking on the Draft, here, there only appears to be a broken image link and a heading - certainly not a fully fledged encyclopedia article. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 17:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, after sitting here for a second, I think you might also be facing a few issues - posting an autobiography is strongly discouraged, especially since it also crosses the Conflict of Interest line. It appears (*from your talk page*) that you've been trying this for quite awhile now... :D - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 17:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Article for the school I work in. Is this appropriate? There is no article yet as it is small.

I am thinking of trying to construct an article about the school I work at. I am a teacher and I am getting the children to write the content (that shall be edited!). I will endevour to source it. I see there are not many articles about Primary (5 years to 11 years) schools in Oxford, England. Is there anything i need to bear in mind?StuJee1 (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, StuJee1, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are several issues here. First of all, you have a Conflict of interest, and must therefore be particularly careful to be as objective as possible, and to stick closely to what the sources say. Secondly it is really better to find the sources first, and then write the article based on what they say. Thirdly, there are few articles about primary schools, in any location, because such schools are only rarely Notable. The school you work for may be an exception, of course. Please read our guideline on the notability of organizations before deciding to proceed with this project. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Citations for K2-72 and TRAPPIST-1g

I've been trying to cite recent studies done on the K2-72 and TRAPPIST-1 systems to use for editing the articles of the stars and planets in each systems. However, I'm having difficulty doing so, especially with the article for K2-72, which seems to use an older citation list type. Is there anyone that can help?

P.S: For K2-72, I'm trying to cite its page on ExoFOP.ProtoJeb21 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

ProtoJeb21: I suspect that no-one has answered your question because no-one here knows the answer (or even what K2-72, TRAPPIST-1, and ExoFOP are). You might do better asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. Maproom (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Creating wikipedia page for House of Hiranandani

I am not able to create wikipedia page for House of HiranandaniJayeshpanchal117 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Jayeshpanchal117: you have created an article titled "House of Hiranandani", five times. Each time it has been deleted, as promotional and unreferenced. There is now what appears to be an attempt to write an article at Talk:House of Hiranandani; as well as being in the wrong place, it is blatantly promotional "The brand enjoys high customer equity & loyalty, acclaimed éclat for its architectural legacy and always striving towards providing indulgent homes", and has no references. If that's the best you can do, at your sixth attempt, you really ought to give up. Maproom (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jayeshpanchal117 Agreeing with all of the above, the fact that there has been a community discussion on inclusion of this topic, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Hiranandani means that any further attempt to include this topic will have to address the basis underlying the consensus to delete the article –lack of any evidence of notability, coupled with the promotional nature of the write-up. So, any article would have to be carefully neutrally written and demonstrate the topic's notability by citation to reliable, secondary, independent sources which write about the topic in substantive detail (which probably don't exist and so no suitable article is possible. Without meeting these standard, future attempts will be deleted under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, as reposts. Oh, also, the content at the talk page, as quoted above, was a copyright violation and plagiarism of House of Hiranandani's LinkedIn page. Please don't do that again. Doing so is likely to quickly result in a block from editing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources that provide information which is misleading or contains half-truths or is incorrect

I recognize that the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy has some strengths. However sometimes this policy poses an issue when a source which is generally considered "reliable" will contain information with varying degrees of truth. At best, the source could contain information that is misleading, and at worse, it could contain information that is simply incorrect.

What is the best course of action when an editor insists that their contribution to an article is valid because of its use of a "reliable" source with "verified" information, even when other secondary sources contradict that information, and especially when primary sources contradict that information? Gfcvoice (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The recommended course of action is to discuss the matter on the talk page of the article (Yahoo! and Oath Inc., I assume) until a consensus is reached. Maproom (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Maproom you are correct that my post was prompted by those articles, however, the issue of misleading/incorrect "reliable" sources is one that I've seen quite a lot. Gfcvoice (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Maproom are there any steps an editor can take if discussion on the talk page leaves the disagreement unresolved? Gfcvoice (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. But you haven't even started the discussion yet. Maproom (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Gfcvoice and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally, when apparently reliable sources differ on the facts, we present all versions, indicating what source supports what version. If many reliable sources have one version and one is an outlier, less space will be given to the outlying version, or it may be left out. See WP:DUE for more details on this. Note that we generally give secondary sources higher weight than primary sources. But much depends on the reputation of a particular source among the experts in a field.
An editor can post on the Reliable source noticeboard to get an opinion on whether a particular source is reliable for a particular statement in a particular article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Maproom is of course correct that discussion is the first step when editors disagree about sourcing or content. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
DES I'm a bit confused by the idea that "we generally give secondary sources higher weight than primary sources." Using the Yahoo! example (which is not the only instance of this type of situation happening), we have a situation where a company issued a press release stating that X, Y and Z happened. However some secondary sources have stated that K happened, which is a misleading/incorrect way of rephrasing the information in the press release. I would have thought that the press release should be given higher weight than secondary sources which interpret the press release incorrectly. Gfcvoice (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, and independent sources are strongly preferred to partial sources such as press releases. Whatever, you ought to be discussing this on the relevant talk pages. Maproom (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Gfcvoice, our general presumption is that a quality secondary source will review multiple existing primary sources, weigh them against each other, and interpret each in the light of the others, thereby producing reliable accounts and interpretations of what happened. Of course this doesn't always go as smoothly as we would like. But then company press releases are often slanted and spun to put the face on the events that the company would prefer, and sometimes are far from accurate. Other primary sources may reflect bias conscious and unconscious, or may be too close to an event to get a proper perspective on it. In any specific case, what sources to use and how to use them should be debated on the talk page of the article in question, not here at the Teahouse. But here we can describe the general principles and process. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Getting Datone Jones to B class

I'm a UCLA Bruins fan in Anaheim, CA who edits articles about anything related to UCLA (former and current players), as well as other California articles but is there any thing I can do to help get the article Datone Jones to B class? That article is one of the articles I would like to get to good article status one day, but for now I am focused on improving it, and getting it to B class. I've seen the criteria about it, but is there anything that needs to be done to get it to B class. Or does the article needs copyediting? Thanks! --UCLAgirl623 (Whats up!) 21:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey UCLAgirl623. The short answer is that the only classes that really matter as far as a measure of good quality goes are WP:GA and WP:FA. These have clear and generally respected evaluation procedures and standards that are consistently adhered to by the community. Start through B class really don't, and they're pretty arbitrary in the way they're used overall. Shoot for GA, and don't worry about anything in between. Articles often go directly from start or C class to GA just because most editors kindof "get" that the interim is not really that meaningful in practice. Whether something is a B class is often more dependent on who reviews it, and how they're feeling that day, rather than the objective state of the article. TimothyJosephWood 22:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi UCLAgirl623. Note that this was drafted in response to your follow-up, which you removed from above in the interim. Some first look thoughts for improvement. (Feel free to copy this to the article's talk page, if you'd like.):
  • The article does not have a sufficient lead section, which would certainly be noted at any GA review. It should, usually in two to four paragraphs, depending on the breadth of the body: "summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
  • The following are unsourced: The text under "College career"; the last sentence under Senior season; the last sentence under "Green Bay Packers"; the entirety of the sections under "2013 season", "2014 season" and "2015 season".
  • The section under Minnesota Vikings is a single short sentence; feels like an orphan; surely two sourced sentences can be sustained?
  • All three statistics tables are cited using an external link embedded in the text, without full attribution details.
  • For that matter, the form of many of the references need work (I have not looked at them to see that they verify what they purport to verify, or judged their reliability) but they need full attribution, where a few are just links. For example:
<ref>[http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/packers/defensive-end-datone-jones-in-a-rush-to-be-good-5n9md13-204413231.html Defensive end Datone Jones in a rush to be good]</ref>
Would be better as:
<ref>{{cite news|url=http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/packers/defensive-end-datone-jones-in-a-rush-to-be-good-5n9md13-204413231.html|last=Dunne|first=Tyler|newspaper=The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel|title=Defensive end Datone Jones in a rush to be good|date=April 23, 2013|accessdate=June 15, 2017}}</ref>
Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: I just added the reference you told me about. I can copy the first 5 sentences before the citation part into the talk page, correct? --UCLAgirl623 (Whats up!) 22:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, though please copy it all (including my signature) or none at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I copied all the bullets and your signature @Fuhghettaboutit:. --UCLAgirl623 (Whats up!) 23:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

ghgg

Hhh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarwankhanpalijo18 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sarwankhanpalijo18, did you have a question about editing Wikipedia? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

A citing question

Is it allowed to use another wiki about a specific thing as a source for a new article? Thank you!2602:306:8317:88B0:9C66:902F:BA15:997D (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Other wikis are not considered reliable sources because wikis can be freely edited by anyone. That is why one Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference in another Wikipedia article. In general, we use high quality references with professional editorial control and good reputations for accuracy and fact checking. Cullen328 Let's discuss it
There are such things as "closed wikis" where only a limited number of editors are authorized to post or edit content. A closed wiki might possibly be a reliable source on some topic, depending on its policies and reputation. But almost all publicly available Wikis are open wikis, where anyone can post and edit. Open wikis, like open fora, are pretty much never reliable sources, except about their own content. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

declined article

Hello,

The article I wrote was declined because they say "this article already exists in Wikipedia". I wrote an article on "Now Photography", they say the article already exists as "Photography" but that isn't the same thing. It's the same thing as saying that the article "street photography" should be under "photography". The Now photography" is a new branch. How could I improve it so it'd be accepted as an independent article?

Thank you for your help!Diana T (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Diana T. You need to demonstrate that independent, secondary sources consider "now photography" to be a distinct branch of photography. Large parts of the draft at Draft:Now Photography don't cite sources, and from a very quick check, some of the sources you do cite don't actually mention "now photograph" - do any of them? The draft is also written like a story or an essay rather than an encyclopedia article: wording such as "It all started with a box" and "Photography has come a long way since 1839" don't belong in an encyclopedia. You write that "Selfies are a good illustration of Now Photography". What is the source for this? Who argues that there are a good illustration? These are some of the problems with the draft as it stands. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The draft seems to be an essay about "photography using cellphones", though it doesn't make this clear. I don't think there's any way it could be converted to an acceptable article. Maproom (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean, Cordless Harry, thank you for having taken the time to read it and to explain why it was declined. Thank you for your feedback as well Maproom.Diana T (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Can someone review my draft + Can someone give me advice on uploading images?

Hi. I'm quite new here, and I made a draft article named Draft:1902 Software Development. I hope someone can review it, before I publish it. Also, I'm planning to add images, is that okay? Or is it better to keep it simple / don't have pictures, since it's only a short article? Looking forward to your advicePam wiki2017 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pam wiki2017: (For reference, always link to the page you're asking about, in this case Draft:1902 Software Development). If you have freely licensed images, you can upload them. However, the article has a much more substantial flaw. None of the cited independent references even mention 1902 Software, let alone cover it in reasonable depth. It's not enough to just cite a bunch of references, they must directly and specifically cover the article subject to demonstrate notability. If reference material like that exists about the company, you should cite that instead, rather than just references that are just tangentially related to the same general concept. If reference material like that doesn't exist, the company is not an appropriate article subject. The draft in its current state would certainly be rejected. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Thank you for your review and feedback. I've made some research and included references that mentioned 1902 Software. I also added links on affiliations showing that 1902 Software is an official member of those organization. I hope you can review my draft again. Pam wiki2017 (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I've had a look at the draft but I'm afraid that as it stands there is no chance that it would be accepted for inclusion in Wikipedia. It still suffers from the problem that none of the references demonstrates notability for the company. All they prove is that it exists, which is not enough. If you can't find sufficient in-depth coverage of the company, you will never succeed in getting the article accepted. Try taking a look at WP:CORP and some of the other articles linked from there to get a better idea of what's required. Sorry to be negative, I'm not trying to put you off contributing but unless you can find sources you're wasting your time with this particular article. Neiltonks (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Can I have some feedback on my second article ?

Helo, I recently created an article and was wondering if a more experinced editor could give me feedback on it ? Zubin12 (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC) 38 Oxley Road

The property is described as a "two-story bungalow". A bungalow is a house with only one story, or with a small second story under a sloping roof. The picture shows a house with a full-sized upper story. And the property is said to have a basement but no foundation. Maproom (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Maproom according to bungalow#Singapore and Malaysia Post-colonialism, the term bungalow has been adapted and used to refer to any stand-alone residence, regardless of size, architectural style, or era in which it was built. Calling a home a bungalow often carries with it connotations of the price and status of the residence, and thus the wealth of its owner.. The article's lead section says: Across the world, the meaning of the word bungalow varies.
Zubin12, I think the article needs additional sources. Key facts, including the 2017 controversy, seem to be uncited. Also, the citations to the sources given should include further bibliographic detail, such as the dates of publication, page numbers for those sources that are printed, and a title for the Straits Times article. Still, not a bad start. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

newby - where is the page I made?

I logged in, made a page in the sandbox. I liked it, so I followed what instructions I could, and made a page. I believe I "submitted" it, but not certain. The page is Jewish Prayer for Ramadan. Maribethl (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Maribeth1. Your sandbox User:Maribethl/sandbox is still there - you can easily find it by picking "Sandbox" from the top of any page; or more generally by picking "Contributions" at the top (I found it from your contributions). However, I think you should have a look at What Wikipedia is not: I don't see how as it stands this can be turned into a Wikipedia article. If you can find several independent published sources which talk about this prayer, then you could write an article summarising what those sources say. But simply listing the content is not encyclopaedic, however well-intentioned. Please also look at your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Further to ColinFine's comments, I think this is a copyright violation that needs to be deleted. See WP:COPYOTHERS on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Maribethl, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. You have apparently created two pages about this prayer, one at User:Maribethl/sandbox and one at User:Maribethl/sandbox/Jewish Prayer for Ramadan. I haven't done a detailed comparison, but on a quick glance they look pretty much the same. You should probably choose one of them and delete or blank the other -- having two versions of the same text on different pages can cause confusion and lead to out-of-sync edits.
You have not yet submitted either of these pages for review. That is just as well, because neither would pass as it stands. There are no sources cited at all. If this were to become an article, there would need to be sources cited to verify the authorship, and to show that multiple Independent published reliable sources had written about the prayer at some length. This is how the article demonstrates that the topic is "Notable". Wikipedia uses the term "Notable" in a special way. Here it means that multiple reliable sources discuss the subject, so that there is a basis in sources to write an article about the topic.
If sources could be found and cited, the draft would need to be more than just the text of the prayer. The draft would need to explain who wrote it, and when and why. It would need to show how others have reacted to it, and what their nopnions of it were, and if others had made use of it, and on what sorts of occasions. For comparison, have a look at Shema Yisrael or Lord's Prayer.
Also, the text of the prayer itself is presumably under copyright. It can't stay on Wikipedia unless it has been released under a free license.
Maribethl, do you really think this text could become a Wikipedia article? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I have now deleted both pages as copyright infringements. I am sorry, but Wikipedia's policies on copyright are very clear. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Maribethl is apparently fine with this. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I am new--wrote, then forgot to add tildes. I am actually fine with Wikipedia deleting the page(s). The prayer is online now at the website of the rabbi who wrote it, and must be searchable online. That was the goa. I did look at the shema page, and it is unser a category 'Jewish prayer and ritual'. When I added a category, there was not one for 'Jewish prayer', so I added that.

Does it qualify as an article? I am not certain how to approach that--the rabbi wrote it as a sincere prayer; he is well-acquainted with Ramadan, Islam and Jewish ritual--it is not part of the Jewish ritual, although it could be added by anyone who chose to do so at an appropriate spot in the service. There are no articles or discussions about it that I know of (apart from this one :-)) since it is recently published for public view. I considered adding history about the background of the Jewish response to Ramadan, but that is immaterial to the subject. The rabbi who wrote this sincerely believes in prayer, and sincerely hopes that every thought expressed in the prayer comes to fruition. He is quite busy doing what he can to facilitate peace and understanding in the West Bank and throughout Israel, so my page was simply an attempt to aid him in his work by making the idea of a Jewish prayer for Ramadan available to a wider audience.173.122.84.119 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, assuming that you are Maribeth1. It is helpful if you log in when posting -- then your posts are logged together, and you can receive notifications of responses and mentions. It is not, however, required. Logging in also keeps your IP address private. The IP address can reveal your physical location, depending on how your internet connection is configured.
I am sure that the rabbi who wrote the prayer is perfectly sincere. No one is questioning that. The only thing being questioned is whether the prayer is notable, that is, whether it has come to sufficiently wide notice that a Wikipedia article would be appropriate. You might want to read Your First Article and Wikipedia's golden Rule to learn more about this.
You see, anyone can write a new prayer, and intend it perfectly sincerely. Many might be very well-written and in accord with Jewish principals (or those of whatever religion might be involved). But if no one has heard of them, or uses them, or discusses them, they would not be proper topics of articles here. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources have already written about notable topics, subject to What Wikipedia is Not. It is not a place to publish Original thought or newly created literary or religious works. When and if several people who are not connected with the author of the prayer have written (and published) about it, it might be appropriate to have an article about it here. Until and unless that happens, it won't be. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Referencing Specific Pages of Cited PDF

Short and sweet - an article that I am working on has several PDF files as listed references. Is there a way to specify the page number in the PDF, or is this even necessary? One file is easy enough to navigate, but the other is 96 pages. Any help would be greatly appreciated. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 19:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up and maybe an answer to my own question: Would adding the page number to the reference title help? {{cite web |url=http://www.example.org/ |title=Title for PDF File, pg. 26 |access-date=2017-06-16}}, for example? - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 19:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It certainly would, NsTaGaTr, but a better way would be to include the code |page=26 rather than appending it to the title field. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello, NsTaGaTr and welcome to the Teahouse. You can and should include a page number in exactly the same way as you would for a printed newspaper article or a cite to a book. Something like
{{cite web |url=http://www.example.org/ |title=Title for PDF File|page=26 |access-date=2017-06-16}}
using a page= parameter (or pages= if it is multiple pages or a page range). DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Awesome; many thanks. I knew it would be something simple that I was missing or had clearly overlooked. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 19:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

create an article

How to create an brand new article?5.87.137.56 (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I would first say that successfully creating an article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. The actual technical process is easy to describe but what is expected to go into an article is the hardest part. You may want to start to learn what is expected in articles byfirst looking at existing articles and making small edits first, to get a feel for doing so. You may also want to review this page on creating your first article which provides a good introduction. I'm sure others will have advice, and I hope this helps you. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yonatan Nir - missing article

Hi, I submitted an article for review last week, but it seems to have disappeared. Not sure if I can't view it because it is still in review, or because it was delete. Can anyone help? Thanks Omerh88 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Omerh88 your draft article is here Draft:Yonatan Nir I have declined the article. Large parts of the article appear to have been copied and pasted though, please re-write in your own words or it will be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't look like you did decline the article, Theroadislong. Did you mean to review it, or is there a typo in your comment above? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
My apologies it appears I didn't follow up after my comment! Sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Theroadislong, can you elaborate on which part you are referring to? The biography was written by me, and the synopses were copied as it didn't seem right to write a synopsis in my own words. Thanks

Omerh88 (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Omerh88: I checked the first synopsis, and found it was copied verbatim from http://www.ruthfilms.com/dolphin-boy.html, and is therefore a copyright violation. Wikipedia is strict about obeying copyright law. I assume that the other synopses are also copyright violation, and will have deleted them. Maproom (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

How to move a page?

There is a page that I believe should be moved to a different title. However it does not have the "More" > "Move" headings like most pages do. How can I request a page move? Gfcvoice (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Gfcvoice. I don't know what kind of page doesn't have a Move option. But you can request at WP:RM. --ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I assume it's about [2] which was unsurprisingly declined. Yahoo! is fully move-protected. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Gfcvoice. Please read WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. In short, the page should not be moved to that title at this time, and doing so would not be at all uncontroversial, so, not now but say in a few years, if and when Yahoo! starts actually being referred to by the new name by a preponderance of reliable, English language sources, would such a request be made at the main section of Wikipedia:requested moves, rather than as a uncontroversial, technical move section where you requested it. Best regards-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

What do I do if a correction was reverted?

I made some corrections on the article "Identitarian Movement" due to a false translation and they got reverted. What can I do? I would like to have the article corrected, it should be, but I imagine if I redid my corrections they would just get reverted again... 201.241.84.219 (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You could provide better translations, instead of just deleting referenced content. Maproom (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
You should expect to be reverted if you remove referenced content with the only justification being your own opinion. The correct procedure is to discuss your objections on the talk page where a discussion has already been started about Christoph Gurk. Dbfirs 08:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Advertising

Hello there! I saw that the Costco article is written like an advertisment, please explain to me how to flag this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilbertboys (talk • contribs) 00:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gilbertboys: Hello and welcome. I would first ask you if only one person is using your username; "boys" suggests more than one person might be. Only one person can use a username and they cannot be shared.
Regarding the Costco article, what aspect of it do you see as an advertisement? 331dot (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
331dot, bear in mind that Boys is a valid surname. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.208.38 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
If you say it's a surname, fair enough, but Gilbert is also a surname and the name suggests to me two boys with the last name of Gilbert(like brothers). Just looking for some clarification. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The first paragraph of Costco is unacceptably promotional. I don't have time to deal with it now. Maproom (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Gilbertboys. You can find all article cleanup templates at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup. For this particular case, I believe the {{advert}} tag would be appropriate. Hope this helps! –FlyingAce✈hello 14:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Image help

Hi, In the article Mallard, the four images, Plate 221 of the Birds of America by John James Audubon., Calls, Iridescent speculum feathers of the male, and Owing to their highly 'malleable' genetic code, mallards can display a large amount of variation,[23] as seen here with this female, who displays faded or 'apricot' plumage, are shifted downwards when I removed the gallery from the article and include the necessary images. I tried a lot to have proper positioning for the images, but could best get to the images to the right being positioned properly (Male mallard, Sweden 2016, Fledgling, Juvenile, An American black duck (top left) and a male mallard (bottom right) in eclipse plumage, and the audio box A mallard quacking). However, the four images to the left (named earlier), are still way too low. It would be great if they could finish before the Distribution and habitat heading (see this revision for example; however, in visual mode would be better. It shows the current revision in the visual mode below). In short, those four images, could they finish before the Distribution and habitat heading? (and possibly starting parallel to the first or second image in the right Male mallard, Sweden 2016 or Fledgling?) Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: I'm not entirely understanding your question. Ideally, where do you want each image to be placed? (In which section and on the left or right side?) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Calliopejen1: Basically, I want those four images, actually three images and one sound box,(Plate 221 of the Birds of America by John James Audubon., Calls, Iridescent speculum feathers of the male, and Owing to their highly 'malleable' genetic code, mallards can display a large amount of variation,[23] as seen here with this female, who displays faded or 'apricot' plumage) at the left to be moved upwards and finish before the heading Distribution and habitat. Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Please don't put images on the left if you can avoid it (and if it seems necessary it's usually just because there are too many). On smaller screens (e.g., ordinary 13" laptops) the text gets squeezed like toothpaste between those on the left and those on the right, and becomes annoyingly hard to read – just as in that page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Adityavagarwal, I forgot to mention your name when I wrote the above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_627&oldid=1067831348"