Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 669

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 665←Archive 667Archive 668Archive 669Archive 670Archive 671→Archive 675

This is not an autobiography but a factual page of Tunku Harun's existence

Hi,

Tunku Harun is from the Royal Family of Kedah, Malaysia. He is the son of Tunku Annuar (already on wiki) and the nephew of current Sultan of Kedah, Abdul Halim of Kedah (already on wiki). This is not a page to advertise Tunku Harun, but to merely acknowledge that he is from the royal family on wikipedia.

Please advise.

Tunku Harun (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tunku Harun. I do not understand what you're getting at. You named your account "Tunku Harun", and are attempting to write a draft about "Tunku Harun". Are you indicating by your message that you're not "Tunku Harun"? If so, you should not have named your account by a title that implies your name is the name of the subject you are writing about. In fact, this is not allowed under WP:MISLEADNAME. If that is what you meant, I suggest you seek a name change at Wikipedia:Changing username. On the other hand, if you are Tunku Harun, then any page you write about yourself is by definition an "autobiography", which is all that word means – a biography written by the person who is the subject. (Though it's quite true that writing an autobiography here is a very bad idea.) Meanwhile, since AFAICT from looking at you edit history and your talk page, no one has left you any messages about advertising, I'm wondering why you posted the message above. Did you try to post a page about this person previously, using a different username or by your IP address? Do you have a specific question about the draft in your sandbox? By the way, any page about Tunku Harun should be continued as a draft, such as in your sandbox, and not in your userpage. That's not what userpages are for, and since you had already duplicated the content to your sandbox, I have deleted your userpage. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit, I previously discussed the need for Tunku Harun to read WP:GNG, WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_667#How long does it take for the biopage to go live on wikipedia? Thanks for following up. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Question was archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the pointer to that discussion GrammarFascist, missed it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Userpage

Hello! I have a question about my userpage; am I allowed to mention the fact that I am an admin on another Wiki on there? TheFlameChomp (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello TheFlameChomp and welcome to the Teahouse.
What editors are allowed to have on their userpage is somewhat flexible. If the mention of the other Wiki does not seem promotional, and you are making useful contributions here to en-wikipedia, chances are your mention of this fact would face not objections. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Alright, thanks! I'll just put a simple message saying, "I'm an admin on the Super Mario Wiki." --TheFlameChomp (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Question About Crud

I hope that a question about stupid Wikipedia behavior isn't a stupid question. On New Page Patrol I frequently see stuff that clearly has no resemblance to anything that would ever be in a Wikipedia article for more than the few hours it takes until it is tagged for speedy deletion. I am thinking in particular of "articles" about companies that are written in the first person ("we"), but I see a lot of other types of "articles" about which I have this question. The question is whether the authors of these articles really have never bothered to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and so really have no idea that what they are submitting is completely inappropriate, or whether they know that what they are submitting is completely inappropriate and are hoping that it doesn't get thrown out. (This question isn't about half-plausible descriptions of companies, written in Wikipedia style by paid editors. Those are clearly intended to get past the reviewers.) Is the complete junk being submitted by people who really haven't read the policies and guidelines, or by people who are trying to end-run around them? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Robert, wouldn't it be better to ask this sort of question at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers?
No. Most of them will either agree with me or agree with the official party line of the WMF, which apparently just wants growing numbers. In this case, I wanted possibly different perspectives. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia's openness to new editors comes with a few drawbacks. There is no required training that a new editor must go through before they start editing. We can suggest things, but nothing is really enforced on the front end beyond the limitations on anonymous and very new editors creating new pages (if ACTRIAL is really happening). I think it's a good bet that people creating these completely inappropriate pages have no idea what WP's policies and guidelines are. The trick is to guide them into becoming decent contributors without scaring them off. I don't have a good answer to that dilemma. You can work with some people for days and they still don't get it. Other people catch on with a few corrective comments. The key differentiator, if it exists, may be the determination the new editor has to become a WP editor vs just wanting their subject to have a page on WP.
I personally believe that many people who take advantage of the fact that anyone can edit will never, with any amount of help, be decent contributors, for various reasons. However, if we want as many newcomers as possible to become decent contributors, we need a more formalized meeting and greeting function to acculturate the new editors into Wikipedia. Expecting the reviewers to do that isn't good business, and requires that people look two ways at once and take on two different inconsistent roles, quality control and training. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The other unknown is whether new editors are coming here with externally-sourced instructions on how to create a WP page. Some of these are pretty good about explaining the ethos and procedures, while I think there are others that are just cheat sheets for gaming the system. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
One class of editors who do come here with externally-sourced instructions is students who are participating in classes that have projects to create Wikipedia pages. In some cases, the instructor does know what Wikipedia policies and guidelines are, and works with Wikipedia well. In other cases, the instructor has given instructions that are in one way or another inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially with regard to neutral point of view, advocacy, and original research. Such class projects can be seriously troublesome, especially because the students have no reason to believe that they are being given improper instructions, and are caught between the instructor and the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
My guess is that it's the former in most cases. You only have to observe Teahouse questions to see the frequent misunderstanding/complete lack of knowledge of how notability is judged, which suggests to me that people are writing articles without reading about policies and guidelines first. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with User:Cordless Larry that it is the former (total cluelessness). In particular, I have observed that there is a corollary to Murphy's Law, and that is that if great care has been taken to ensure that a particular mistake is not made, then that mistake will be made anyway. Murphy's Law originally came from the US Air Force, and assumed that there was some degree of training of the people, and that the people all were in the same organization. In Wikipedia, where there are no constraints on the people, all of the possible mistakes will be made, and all of the impossible mistakes will be made. An example of an impossible mistake is the assumption that one should create an account with the same name as the one article that one is planing to create. We tried to explain, but some editors just push on. So I think that many editors simply have no clue and that they aren't likely to acquire clue. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Robert McClenon, and welcome back to the Teahouse. There is no good way to determine the frame of mind of new editors who try to post clearly inappropriate articles here. We promote Wikipedia as the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" without explaining as prominently that their edits must comply with our policies and guidelines. I have looked at hundreds of speedy deletion nominations in the month plus since I became an administrator. Some is obvious "crud" to use your term. Some seems based on the assumption that any referenced article about a dentist, author, lawyer or musician is acceptable. Some are borderline and I do not delete those. If there is a strong claim to notability, I decline the speedy. In one case, I expanded and saved an article. This is a project to build an encyclopedia and I do not think that we should be trying to delete articles about notable topics. The real badge of honor here is detecting, improving, referencing, expanding and saving poor quality articles about notable topics. I recommend that you make that your primary goal, and everything else will naturally fall into place. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Gee, Cullen328, I usually find I agree with you 100%, but here in the context of the Teahouse, I'd want you to say that the real badge of honor is helping another editor become a more useful contributor. That way, you amplify the contribution of good WP content far beyond your own tremendous, but (inevitably) limited, ability. Our NPP instructions certainly include discerning when a poor contribution is about a notable subject but that's usually going to be a gray area; we should not be blaming beleaguered NPP reviewers if they occasionally miss one. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the question is covered reasonably well here. I agree that the former is applicable in most cases, while the latter can only be revealed after engaging with the new editor. Alex ShihTalk 07:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's a bit off-topic, but I'd like to insert a note of optimism. At the Teahouse, we're used to dealing with new users who fail to read the guidelines, create unnacceptable articles, ask for advice, and then often don't follow it. We may get the impression that all new users who create articles are like that. But they're just the ones we notice. A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of meeting (in person) a new user who had read and understood the guidelines, and has been competently creating new articles, without violating any policies or creating any problems for other editors. If I hadn't met her, I'd never have been aware of her work. Teahouse hosts should remember that what they see here may not be typical. Maproom (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Now and then, we have people asking a Teahouse question at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse, despite a prominent warning not to do so; or asking a RefDesk question at the Help Desk, despite a similar warning. If you go to any software help forum, you are bound to find multiple questions that would not have been asked if only keywords from the question had been searched online or in the provided documentation (though the question itself may or may not be trivial, the answer to that exact question is stated in easily-available sources).
There are people who just cannot RTFM. Some don't care or don't want to; some have mental health issues of varying degrees; some have trouble understanding English. But I believe some, maybe even most, simply do not understand the concept of reading the manual. They genuinely want to help, can take time to ask a question, and more often than not listen at the answer; but they cannot learn anything in non-interactive mode. I see no reason to assume that it would be different on Wikipedia than elsewhere. It could be that creating an article is difficult and hence weeds out those who don't care or cannot understand English; but some are bound to stay.
As said above, we tend to notice them because that is how our brain works, but it is still a relatively rare occurrence. I am not even sure these people are significantly more lazy/stupid/bad faith than the average newbie in any other respect. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If a new article ODA watch I am about to write is notable?

Dear Sir, ODA watch is an old wrist high quality watch (SWISS?)which is a family thing. I guess this watch was bought by my grandfather in Odessa (present Ukraine) between year 1920 and 1940 (born ~1899, Russian Eprire - died 1940, Stalino (Donetsk at present), Soviet Union). As long as I could find no mention on the subject in English Wikipedia, I kindly ask you to allow me to start a new Wikipedia article, actually as a title only. This is of importance for me and some other people. Thank you kindly, Yours sincerely, Dr Kostiantyn Ostapenko, MD (retired). Odessa, Ukraine 78.26.151.211 (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. An article with just a title would immediately be deleted. If you read the advice at WP:Your first article it will give you some advice, and in particular you need to read Wikipedia's definition of notability which determines whether an article is appropriate. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
It appears that these watches are a fairly niche item, you really need to find some references that show it is notable, or if the manufacturer has/could have a Wikipedia page, a title only redirect could be made. I can't find any sources about this watch, and the watch itself is not a source. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  10:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

England in 1650

Salutations,

I am writing a book that is set in Europe during the year 1650, and I would like to discover more about the Third English Civil War and how it affected the modern-day region of North East England. Any information about daily life there during this time period would also be greatly appreciated!

Many thanks for your help!

Occurrence of Magic (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Occurrence of Magic

Hello Occurrence of Magic and welcome to the Teahouse.
Since your question is not about editing Wikipedia, we will not answer it here. You may want to ask at the reference desk, which is the place where more general reference questions, such as this one, are answered. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 15:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Occurrence of Magic:. The overview articles 1650 and 1650 in England could be a good start. Or Third English Civil War and the categories: Category:English Civil War and Category:1650 in England. You may want to improve some of articles you come across. Good Luck! Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  11:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

How to create an article.

Hi I'm new to this and I'm really interested in creating a new article. How do I do that? Please reply and thanks again 😊 Lulmaxs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulmaxs (talk • contribs) 09:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lulmaxs: Check out the article wizard. It will help you with this. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 09:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lulmaxs, and welcome to the Teahouse. You probably also need to read WP:My first article, WP:Referencing for beginners, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Notability before you start. You might prefer to create your article in WP:Draft space so that you have the opportunity to work on it without the risk of getting it deleted. Dbfirs 12:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

How do I upload on my Wikipedia account?

I've noticed that everyone has an 'upload' tab. How do I upload on my account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Middleton (talk • contribs) 00:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You can use Wikimedia Commons to give pictures to Wikipedia. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  11:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and normally you should. You should only upload them English Wikipedia in rather unusual circumstances. So it's odd that there's an "Upload file" option in the menu to the left of every page, taking you to the English Wikipedia upload page. Maproom (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
But it does give an option to upload at Commons. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

How to replace files with new versions?

File:Charax_(Peutinger_Map).png

I want to edit this file and replace it, but I don't know how. The Verified Cactus 100% 00:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

At commons:File:Charax (Peutinger Map).png there is a link labelled "Upload a new version of this file". You will, of course, need to specify the licence correctly. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Noted, thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 13:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

How to change logo of an institution?

Hi, Concerning the International Trade Centre Wikipedia page: The International Trade Centre updated its logo a few years ago. However, on its Wikipedia page there is a UN logo. But ITC has its own logo. Does anyone know how to change this? Thank you! Chiarachiara11 (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Convenience link: International Trade Centre. The infobox for UN organizations automatically inherits the UN logo, so that is still there, and the ITC logo has been added. --Gronk Oz 09:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk)Thank you! However, since the International Trade Centre only has a joint mandate with the United Nations, it is wrong if we keep the UN logo on the website as well. Could you remove the UN logo? Thank you

Chiarachiara11 (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Stuck

Hi,

I wanted to work on Broad_concept_article on legal theory article related to "legitimacy of law". "legitimacy of law" term Google search is giving 67,800 searches If I put the term "legal legitimacy", out of that 12,000 searches in google books. "legitimacy of law" term gives 1,090,000 google searches out of that 142,000 are google book searches.

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says this "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." . I had requested Legitimacy (law) title, that stood declined since probably I lost a perception or english grammar battle in an RM discussion two months back.

Even an alternative title acceptable to community will do for me. Since last two months I am stuck and do not know how to proceed further. Can the community help in some way.

Mahitgar (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Mahitgar.
I can only suggest that you develop your article in a sandbox without worrying overmuch about the title. I think you may perhaps be misunderstanding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (although I've evidently never grasped it, either, when I see how it gets applied in practice).
In addition to developing your article, there may be some other pages, such as Jurisprudence or Philosophy of law where a short summary of your topic might legitimately be inserted. Based on how that content settles in, you may discover a consensus on what to call your new article. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 14:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mahitgar. I'm not sure what you want to write about as distinct from the existing articles—and suggesting a suitable title without understanding the topical scope is difficult—but would either Legitimacy in the law or Legitimacy (legal concept) be of any use?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mahitgar:. The terminology you are referring to is mostly covered at Legitimacy (political) and Legitimacy (criminal law), and to a lesser extent the concept of the article is covered at Jurisprudence. I suppose some other articles related to Jurisprudence could be considered also. I prefer the title Legitimacy of law over the various other options, mainly because Legitimacy (family law) is not going to get confused with it that easily, the title clearly refers to the topic, and is a commonly used term, whereas Legal Legitimacy is both ambiguous and unclear, and using (law) brackets is unnatural and not recommended for this type of page. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  11:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aguyintobooks: Thanks for reply. Legitimacy (political) is parallel at times over lapping but not exactly the same as of "Legitimacy of law" (For example one may doubt political legitimacy of British rule in India in colonial times, but british did comparativly perform better on legal legitimacy: that is my personal view) and I suppose aproach of people from political/social sciences will be bit different than that of aproach from legal background. Legitimacy (criminal law) is an offshoot and If we have an offshoot then why not parent too. Present content in Legitimacy (criminal law) is not meant for Legitimacy criminal law but for parent thing Legitimacy of law, since I wrote keeping in view of Legitimacy of law. We/I will need to rewrite Legitimacy (criminal law) once main parent article is written.

Actually I tried Sources of law also but while actually expanding I realised that it would not be able to handle entire gamut but only few parts.

Thanks again for replies.

Mahitgar (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I recommend going straight in with the new article, at the moment the topic is split over several articles and blended with other things, which is fine, but in dire need of someone pulling it all together as you suggest. You could simply cut and paste what you started in Legitimacy (criminal law) into the new article to start it off. (you have to point out where it came from in the edit summary if you do that). obviously a hatnote to avoid confusion with Legitimacy (family law) is obligatory. and all these other articles that have pieces of this topic in them will need to be linked to the new article. So plenty to do here. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  11:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi again Mahitgar. Just a slight clarification to the post above. It's quite important but not difficult: under our free copyright licenses, suitable credit requires that when you copy and paste content from other articles/pages you provide copyright attribution in a specific manner that includes a hyperlink to the source (copied-from) page, e.g., Copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. See more at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. (You might note an apparent gotcha—that this post copies and pastes content from that page, and yet I do not provide attribution in the edit summary in the manner I've suggested; this is an exception, b/c the content I am pasting from there was added to that page by me.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Un-ping

Is there a way to un-ping an editor? I nominated someone for Editor of the Week just a few minutes ago and I think I mistakenly "pinged him". The award is intended to be a surprise. Did I blow it? ―Buster7 ☎ 17:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Buster7: Hello and welcome. As far as I know, once you ping someone, it's done. I don't think it's possible to undo it. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up a bit in the electronic musical instrument categories, its a bit of a mess, and quite a few pages I'm finding have many or all of their citation links and even company website links that go nowhere. Some of these companies appear to be out of business and were not notable enough for inclusion wikipedia in the first place, from what I see -- examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroeder_Amplification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodsell_Amplifiers (

There are more, but I was wondering if it's best to just leave them or to at least delete the citations that are dead? If all the citations are dead, and it has already been listed as appearing as an advertisement, should the page be deleted? Skyhenge11 (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Skyhenge11. If you believe the subject of the article is non-notable, then you should consider nominating it for deletion. However, this does require you to do some investigating beforehand to try to verify that there isn't additional sourcing available other than what's in the article. Gotta remember that, as a general rule, articles are deleted because the subject doesn't meet our notability standards, not because the article doesn't.
If you're finding dead links, it's usually better to try to find an archived version first by following the instructions at WP:DEADLINK. If you still can't find it, you can either tag the link with Template:Dead link, especially if you're not yet confident in looking for alternative versions, or you can remove the link. If you remove the link, you can either replace it with something like Template:Citation needed, or try to find a different source all together to support the same information. If the content seems particularly outlandish, or if it is content about a living person (of any variety), consider removing the information if you cannot find an alternate source. TJWtalk 18:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Advice to User:Benjamin Loomes and Syrinscape

Can someone please give some neutral or friendly advice to an editor who ignored my advice? User:Benjamin Loomes created Syrinscape about a music-generation software package. The article was promotional, and stated that Benjamin Loomes is the developer of Syrinscape. I tagged it as G11. The author replied on my talk page, saying that they would like to try to make it neutrally worded. Well, it isn't easy for a conflict of interest editor to make their piece neutral, and I moved it to draft space, and advised them to ask for neutral help at the Teahouse. They promptly restored the article in article space, and said that they would ask a few other experienced editors for help, and would then get back to me. Since it was back in article space, I tagged it for G11 again. It was then deleted, as was Draft:Syrinscape. G11 is a general speedy deletion code, and can be used in draft space. They now asked me what to do next. Since they wouldn't listen to my initial advice, I don't have any more advice. Requests for Undeletion usually declines a request to undelete a G11 deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If they're going to ignore your advice anyway, I see no reason to be particularly accommodating. You could advise them to give up on Wikipedia for promoting their product, and advise them to use Facebook instead. Maproom (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I've posted to their user talk about their use of "we" on your talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Aand I replied on Robert's page. Avengers Teahouse Assemble! TJWtalk 17:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. So I see I wasn't the only editor who felt a little unfriendly. At first I was inclined to be friendly because they were asking for help, but this appears to be a case where they wanted to know exactly how much promotional content they could keep and how much they had to take out. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

WIki pages deleted: Knights of the Cauliflower Ear

Someone removed a page about the Knights of the Cauliflower Ear. I can find nothing about it on Wikipedia. It had no remarks about citations or references, no criticism that I could find about it's style or quality. If it was removed because it was deemed ephemeral or unimportant, I say here that then Senator Harry S. Truman, and soon to be President Truman was a member of the Knights of the Cauliflower Ear, along with other important members of that organization. It is not about: "Fight Club". Is there traces of the original Wiki post? Can they be restored? 2602:306:8039:CC20:1D51:BB35:513E:3C17 (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

At [1] it says Knights of the Cauliflower Ear. I can't imagine why the article would be named differently. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Emir of Wikipedia that page does not mention Wikipedia at all, so where do you get the idea that we have ever had such an article? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Dodger67 I was not saying that it mentioned Wikipedia, just showing from a reliable source that the naming is correct. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Emir of Wikipedia, I mistook you for the OP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Can I copy text from another article which I wrote myself?

Hello, I have a question about copying my own text for a new article (page). I have written the text for this page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliette_Benzoni

Now I am working on an article which concern more or less in a section the same information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laramie1960/Catherine:_One_Love_is_Enough#Catherine:_One_Love_is_Enough I explain:

  • the first article was about all the works of the author Juliette Benzoni and her books.
  • the new article is only about her first bestseller Catherine, One love is enough - that is, a series of seven books. Already I believe I should have called the page: Catherine (Juliette Benzoni) because the story is nowadays better known under the name of Catherine. Back to my question, I wrote on Juliette Benzoni page so much about that first bestseller, that I am afraid that I will more or less repeat myself a bit. Yet I wanted the story to have its own article where we can link to.

Its not that I do not know enough of those books, but I thought it would be great if I could use my own words again. But I want to make sure it is fine. I have read so many rules in the last couple of weeks and I admit it is pratically not possible to remember everything. Looking forward to your answer, thank you. Kind Regards Laramie1960 (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Laramie1960. The short answer is Yes, as long as it's done correctly. In your edit summary, you should leave something to the effect of "Content taken from the article ARTICLE NAME, please see the history there for full attribution". It's also good form to leave a note on the talk page of the first article that content has been copied from, since deleting that article (for whatever hypothetical reason at some point in the future) gets complicated, because that means also deleting the full history you're referencing. TJWtalk 19:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi TJWtalk,

thanks so much for your quick reply, that was awefully nice. Great news for me, I do hope I shall now be able to do a nice article. But let me repeat to see I got this right:

  • After I have copied the text from my other article, I write on the summary of the new article (page) that I copied it from ...
  • On the talk page of the old article I leave a message that I have shared some of the text on the new page?

Is that correct? Also, am I aloud to change now the name from : Catherine, One love is enough to : Catherine (Juliette Benzoni) because this can all get confusing. The page called Catherine (TV-Series 1986) is also about that story, yet about the TV-Series of that book. Thanks again for your help, it is much appreciated Laramie1960 (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Laramie1960. While it would not hurt to always do the above, if the content you are copying from the source page was written 100% by you, with no changes by any other users, then you do not need to provide any copyright attribution, because you (personally – not Wikipedia or Wikimedia) own the copyright to all parts of that original content (i.e., outside of included quotations), and so you do not need to comply with the credit provisions of our free copyright licenses where you are copying yourself. Again, though, if there were any changes made by others to the parts you are copying (and without getting into the exception to the exception of whether those changes met threshold of originality), provide the attribution edit summary. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, Laramie1960, I don't see anything wrong with your suggested name on the face of it. As long is it does a good job identifying the subject, and isn't overly complicated, it usually works out okay.
As to the order, yes, you are right there. Also Fuhghettaboutit is absolutely right above. Personally I usually leave an attribution edit summary whenever I do it regardless, just because it can be a pain in the neck sometimes to be 100% sure that you wrote 100% of it, especially if the article has been around for a while. TJWtalk 19:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
As for the title – I think "Catherine (Benzoni novel)" would be more in line with Wikipedia's policies. See Katherine_(disambiguation)#Literature. Maproom (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello to all three of you who have given me great help now.

Yes the text was all written by me, except of course little invisible helpers who correct my spelling mistakes or sign mistakes ;-) feels good to know there are people out there who do that. You can all believe me, I look from now on with different eyes on a Wikipedia article - and that is not flatering, but pure admiration to all these people who take their time to share their knowledge. I send all my best wishes to all of you. Laramie1960 (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism and locking of pages

Hello, a page (titled 'Karlal') I had worked on for a really long time using credible primary and secondary sources keeps getting vandalised. Recently, a user removed all the sources and deleted chunks of data along with adding inaccurate information and locking the page from any edits for a period of 6 long months. My question is, how do I counter this vandalism and locking of a page that I created? Shoaiborakzai90 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Shoaiborakzai90: Hello and welcome. Administrators have the ability to protect a page from editing at the request of any user(typically done by posting at WP:RPP) if the administrator feels it is necessary to. This can be due to vandalism or an editing dispute of some kind. Please note that having one's edits reverted is not necessarily vandalism. I don't see any edits by your username to that article itself(though you posted to the talk page) unless you had edited the page as an IP user. A content dispute should not be dealt with by continually reverting the change in dispute; this is called edit warring(click WP:EW to learn more) and is not permitted. The proper means to resolve a dispute is to first discuss the matter with other editors on the article talk page. If necessary, there are further dispute resolution procedures available to you. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Shoaiborakzai90, who has now been blocked for repeatedly adding unreliably-sourced (apparently not so credible) information to the article Karlal, would probably benefit from reading WP:OWN, which explains why it doesn't make any difference who created an article and that no one editor can claim ownership of, or protect a preferred version of, a Wikipedia article. As we are reminded every time we prepare to save a change to an article, once we do so, our work is free to be modified by anyone. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

What kind of sources are deemed acceptable for a Wikipedia article?

I want to make a wikipedia page for my late grandfather. He was an important journalist, publicist and politician in Peru, who helped ensure the freedom of the press during years where the government was buying the media. He created the first Peruvian owned publicity company and was also one of just three Peruvian journalists who got to interview Ernest Hemingway during his visit to Peru. Anyway, after his passing I realize that all his contributions to others have not been recognized in the digital age. And since I cannot give him anything now, I figure my way of giving back and honoring him is formalizing his achievements. My question is: What kind of sources are deemed acceptable for a Wikipedia article? Can it be newspaper articles? Can it be government records? Luminous86 (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Luminous86, and please accept my condolences on the death of your grandfather. Thank you for asking about sources first, rather than jumping in with poor sources and having to rewrite the article. To answer your question, the best sources are usually newspaper articles, magazine articles, and/or books. But note that the first thing you should do is choose sources which demonstrate your grandfather's notability (as Wikipedia defines that term). Put simply, this means you should have a minimum of two sources (but three to six is best) which are each reliable sources (as Wikipedia defines that term), which are independent of your subject (so interviews with him, and articles published by any of his journalistic employers, do not count), and which each cover him in some detail — more than a few sentences. If you cannot find such sources, then I'm afraid there is no point to trying to create a Wikipedia article about your grandfather. On the other hand, if you do have such sources to hand (or are able to find them), then feel free to return to the Teahouse with any questions you may have, and to create the first draft of the article at "Draft: [your grandfather's name]"; because you have a conflict of interest, you should not edit the finished article, but may work on it in draft form. You should also read the pages WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO for further instructions on how to handle writing about someone so close to you. Again, please accept my condolences. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Found a vague statement in two articles concerning the Russian Army in WW1

Two Russian high ranking members of the command staff, Sukhomlinov and Yanuskevich, both have wiki pages. Both articles list the reasons for the failures of the Russian army early in the war, especially the communications within the staff. Both articles reference the bad communications with some odd sentence structure. Sukhomlinov article:

Sukhomlinov was not allowed to interfere with Sergey Sazonov, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Stavka, c.q. Grand Duke Nicholas; all the briefing with through the hands of Nikolai Yanushkevich, his assistant.

Yanuskevich article:

According to the Russian Minister of War Sukhomlinov in his memoirs he did not, all the briefing with through the hands of Nikolai Yanushkevich, his assistant.[7]

I've only done a few edits, and I honestly don't know where to go to fix this.Pthomas745 (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Pthomas745, and welcome to the Teahouse!
I agree that unclear text can be very problematic to fix, as it is sometimes so unclear that it is impossible to discern what the editor intended to convey. In this case, I believe that the passage is intending to say something like the following:

Sukhomlinov was not allowed to brief senior officials such as Sergei Sazonov, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Stavka, the Russian high command; or the Grand Duke Nicholas, commander-in-chief of the Russian armies early in the war. Briefings were instead conducted by his assistant, Nikolai Yanushkevich.

This is, however, merely my best guess, and it does not answer the question of what Sukhomlinov (or possibly Yanushkevich) "did not" do; that is a very awkwardly inserted passage in the article on Yanushkevich.
Both passages could really use some additional clarifications, which unfortunately will only be available by consulting the original sources. The Yanushkevich article's passage cites a book (Erinnerungen) by what may be a contemporary relative (Vladimir, 1924), but In the case of the Sukhomlinov article, the editor has only provided an inline citation to this, which unfortunately refers to another Wikipedia article; I believe the intent was to cite the actual book (A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891–1924) and not the article about the book. In both cases, unfortunately, verification would require quite a bit of time and work on your part to locate a hard copy at your local library (or perhaps even an interlibrary loan, if they can be found at all) and review them yourself. It is completely understandable if you do not want to take on this task; even though you have found an unclear passage that should really be researched, copy-edited, and properly cited, you are merely a volunteer and are not obligated to actually fix it (though it obviously is greatly appreciated if you do). If you choose not to perform the research yourself, you can try to clean up the wording as best you can and then tag it with {{clarify}} (and fix the Wikipedia reference). I would also recommend starting a conversation on the articles' talk pages about these passages to see if other interested editors have some additional information. I hope this helps! Cthomas3 (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

ping @Pthomas745: @Cthomas3:

The peculiar sentence structure is due to the author probably being Russian, and therefore using Russian grammar and some odd word choices. in this case I would guess 'interfere' means 'contact', and 'briefing' means briefs ie. 'communication' and could be letters or orders. but not a meeting. Therefore: 

Sukhomlinov was not allowed contact with senior officials such as Sergei Sazonov, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Stavka, the Russian high command; or the Grand Duke Nicholas, commander-in-chief of the Russian armies early in the war. Communication was instead conducted through his assistant, Nikolai Yanushkevich.

Would be a correct translation. (And makes more sense given the article is about communication failure). Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  10:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Aguyintobooks, that makes sense. I am not a speaker of Russian, so the help is most appreciated. Cthomas3 (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Upload gone wrong

I tried uploading a new version of an image (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charax_(Peutinger_Map).png) but it compressed vertically and got all messed up.

How do I fix this and why did it happen? The Verified Cactus 100% 23:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The Verified Cactus: I made some purges. commons:File:Charax (Peutinger Map).png and the article uses look OK to me now. Server issues sometimes cause the former image version to be displayed but stretched to the dimensions of the current version. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 00:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Purge button

I think it would be a good idea to have a purge button on the page: Wikipedia:List of current and old AfDs. I have a script which links me to this page as a shortcut to my top navbar, the other day though, I had to do a null edit to refresh it as it was showing days from last month. I don't want to drastically break anything, so can someone look into this please. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  10:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Good idea; I've stuck a {{Purge button}} on it. Yunshui 雲水 10:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks:) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  10:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi and howdy, Aguyintobooks. Two things: If you have a clock on your tool bar, clicking that will purge the page you are on. Second, I learned that because I added Template:Tip of the day to my user page. You can learn all sorts of weird little known esoteric junk from it! John from Idegon (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Can i list the Toss Zone on Wikipedia?

The Toss Zone is not on Wikipedia and I would like others to learn more about it. However, the Toss Zone has not been used on many reliable sources. What do i do?Ewonderworld (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ewonderworld: Hello and welcome. Without knowing what the "Toss Zone" is, if something is not written about in independent reliable sources, it will be difficult to have an article about it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for just posting information to help people; articles must have independent reliable sources(WP:RS) that indicate how the subject is notable(click WP:N to review). If you just want to write about the Toss Zone somewhere, you might be able to find an alternative forum to do so by clicking WP:OUT. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, that answered my question. I have another question. If the the Toss Zone is similar to something that already exists, can i use those references to write information about it? Ewonderworld (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I guess you can use those references. But they will contribute nothing to establishing that Toss Zone is notable. Maproom (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
It would help us give a better answer if you could specify what the "Toss Zone" is. Is it a business of some kind? An aspect of a sport?(like strike zone) 331dot (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Ewonderworld At the Teahouse we always ping OPs because newbies almost never know how to watch a page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Ewonderworld, is it a fair assumption that you are talking about the sensory learning device marketed by a company that's name happens to be the same as your username? If so, what is your connection to the company? Educational toys are sometimes notable, especially if they have been discussed in peer reviewed academic journals. I would not suggest going forward with anything until you clear up the issue of your potential conflict of interest. John from Idegon (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV}

I've attempted to edit the Assault Weapons page, and I keep getting a message saying that I'm not in compliance with the NPOV policy. My only edit was to the wording, by adding the term arbitrary. The definition of arbitrary is "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system"

I inserted the word into this sentence. "Assault weapon is an ARBITRARY term used in the United States to define some types of firearms." It is 100% percent accurate. By definition, and as stated later in the page, that term is arbitrary. The term has a completely different meaning depending on the user and depending on the audience. The fact that I am being blocked from making this change to reflect that change is a biased, or at the very least Non-Neutral Point of View form of censorship to an accurate edit. Strizzychris (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In order to use the word arbitrary in the sense you are using it, Strizzychris, you would have to first show that there are reliable sources that have used the term in the way you used it. Even then, the use of the term in the article would be subject to establishing a consensus to use it. The thing about using a single word is that you'd have to convince the other interested editors (through the use of sources, not your opinion or the definition of the word) that the word is the appropriate descriptor. And pretty much for every source you can find that uses that term in that way, there is likely another that doesn't. John from Idegon (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Strizzychris: The key point here is that you should discuss this on the article talk page. Looking at it I think your best bet is to expand on the section of the article where a cited source states that the term is manufactured(history of terminology). 331dot (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I would revert you, though not on a NPOV basis. Your addition of "arbitrary" to this sentence is unpointed, results in a peculiar construction that immediately calls for explanation ("uh, in what way is the turn of phrase arbitrary?") and adds no useful information for the reader.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Please be aware that the subject of gun control has been the subject of disruptive editing in the past, and, as a result, the Arbitration Committee has imposed discretionary sanctions. The sanctions regime permits administrators to impose penalties, including topic-bans, restrictions on reverts, and blocks, on editors who edit stubbornly or disruptively. So it is always a good idea to edit collaboratively, but it is an even better idea to edit collaboratively when it is the way to avoid punishment under discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Discouraged by reviewers feedback

I am a first-time contributor to Wikipedia, but I am still not finding my way around getting my article accepted. The first review was somewhat useful and related to missing notable sources, which I (thought I) provided. But the second review feedback is not very helpful and is very vague. I am not sure how \ what to improve and what am I missing. What should I do?

Huma.hamid (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Huma.hamid. First of all, try not to get discouraged. Writing a proper Wikipedia article is a pretty challenging thing to do, especially for someone who is not very familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines or Wikipedia's Manual of Style. From your user contributions, it looks like you joined Wikipedia and then immediately tried to create a new article. Of course, there's nothing wrong with this per se, but it is kind of a big project to undertake right from the start. There are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia and sometimes you can learn more about Wikipedia and how to write an acceptable article by trying to improve existing articles instead. With an existing article you get to see the kind of edits other more experienced editors are making and get a general feel for what is typically considered acceptable and what is typically not. There are currently over 5,000,000 Wikipedia articles and almost all of these can be improved in one way or another. Some editors just look for random articles to try and improve, whereas others look for articles about subjects they are interested and see if they can help out.
Since your draft appears to be Draft:Code for Pakistan, I assuming that you're interested in articles about Pakistan. Therefore, you might want to consider asking at WP:PAKISTAN to see if there are any existing articles you can help try and improve. This does not mean you need to give up working on your draft, but it's easy to get frustrated as a Wikipedia editor when you focus too much on one particular thing. Looking at some featured articles or good articles can also be helpful since these are article are reviewed and assessed by experienced editors and are pretty much written in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
As for your draft, you can always post a comment on the user talk page of the AfC reviewer who reviewed your draft. Often templates don't leave lots a space for long explanations on the ways a draft needs to be improved, but AfC reviewers tend to be a friendly bunch and they are usually more than happy to go in more detail when asked. Just try and remember that AfC reviewers are just volunteers like the rest of us, so they may get busy and be unable to respond right way. They also, like the rest of us, respond better to civil posts than rants/raves, so keep that in mind as well. In addition, the members of WikiProject Pakistan might be able to offer some specific suggestions on how to improve the draft or where to find additional/better sources.
In general, AfC reviewers tend to mainly reject drafts because the Wikipedia notability of the subject is not clearly established. Since you're writing about an organization, you're going to have to show (or better show) how it meets WP:ORG. Many editors mistakenly believe that the way to show Wikipedia notability is to write a lot and add lots of sources, but too much detail and too many sources can actually make it harder for a reviewer to sift through everything, thus making it harder for them to approve the draft. One thing I did notice is that the draft has embedded external links in the body of the article, which is not really a good thing. Another thing which stands out to me is referred to as puffery, which can give an article a promotional tone instead of a neutral tone. These things in and off themselves usually will not make or break a draft when the subject is clearly notable, but when combined together with some iffy notablity they can make it harder for a reviewer to approve the draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

indiankanoon.org

indiankanoon.org is cited on 217 pages yet no page 64.175.41.75 (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, editor at IP address 64.175.41.75, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whether a given entity can have an article about it on Wikipedia is dependent on there being independent reliable sources which each treat the subject at some length. Officially, there only need to be two such sources, and they do not need to be cited in the Wikipedia article, but in practice an article is likely to be deleted if there are not 3-6 such sources and/or they are not cited properly in the article. Creating a successful Wikipedia article is actually one of the hardest things to do here, so you may want to learn your way around making edits to existing articles for a while before jumping in with both feet. That said, based on a couple minutes of googling, it looks to me like there may be sufficient sources to support a Wikipedia article about indiankanoon.org, so if you want to get started, I recommend using either Draft:Indian Kanoon or (if you want to sign up for a Wikipedia account) your user sandbox; just click the red link to get started. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Your first article as a first step, however. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 04:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse. That seems to be a website that hosts judgments from Indian courts, and it looks like many editors consider it a reliable source. I haven't looked into that. But there is no requirement that there be a Wikipedia article about a website in order for it to be accepted as reliable. The notability of a media outlet (its threshold eligibility for a Wikipedia article) is very different from its reliability. The worst kind of lying media outlets like Der Sturmer and Weekly World News are notable, but completely unreliable. Conversely, a historical journal published by a state or provincial university may be highly reliable but not notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Keep these two concepts separate in your mind. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
There's a history of spamming around this, I've had to block an account and a couple of socks for copyvio and spam from that site, will re-look at it if I can find the history. —SpacemanSpiff 07:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Would Vötgil be considered "notable"?

I have noticed that Vötgil does not have a wikipedia page! Of course, i'm not experienced enough to know whether it is or not, and, especially in the conlang critic circle, Vötgil has gotten plenty attention. I have noticed that other conlangs such as Lojban or toki pona have wikipedia pages, and in there defense, do have books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooys1 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC) oops! Thanks sinebot

Hi Mooys1, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess it's the same as Votgil which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Votgil. Article subjects should satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I notice that it hasn't got an entry in the Constructed scripts section of Simon Ager's excellent and comprehensive website Omniglot, which suggests it isn't yet very well known and hence is not yet notable. The OP or others could of course apply to Omniglot for inclusion, using the appropriate link on its home page, and see how they fare. [Disclaimer: I have no personal connection to Ager or Omniglot.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.137.12 (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_669&oldid=1136432056"