Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 719

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 715←Archive 717Archive 718Archive 719Archive 720Archive 721→Archive 725

Searching Sevåg

When searching Øystein Sevåg by inserting "Sevåg" as search criteria some people might like to find him as a choice among others. Instead the search leads to Sevag without ambiguity. I don't know how to fix that. Hoping for help to resolve. Thanks. Profero (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Profero. Good catch. I've added the article as an entry for Sevag. Next time you see something that's obviously missing like this, remember that Wikipedia encourages you to be bold, and make improvements to articles without needing to ask permission first. GMGtalk 13:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The trouble with that approach, GreenMeansGo is that Sevag is not a disambiguation page, but an (unreferenced) article about an Armenian surname: Sevåg doesn't fit in there. I went ahead and added the hatnote - I'm not sure what is the best solution. --ColinFine (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah ColinFine... it's not perfect, but it's probably better. I did poke around a little bit, and it looks like some of these surname/given name pages are full fledged articles about a name as a topic with embedded lists, some of them are stand alone lists, and some of them are a type of disambiguation page, with... as far as I can tell, no clear pattern other than what editors decided to do with them at the time. I was considering whether it would have been proper to redirect Sevag (disambiguation) to Sevag, as per the usual practice... and... Well, MOS:SURNAME isn't exactly on topic, and WP:SURNAME redirect back go the MoS. I dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy and maybe someone from that project can weigh in. GMGtalk 13:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to make it clear to readers (including Profero): presumably, ColinFine's the trouble with that approach... was about the choice of action to take (hatnote vs. disambiguation page entry), not about the "be bold" philosophy. The premise behind WP:BOLD is that even a misguided attempt to improve Wikipedia will not damage it permanently, since at worst the error is reverted, and at best corrected and the article improved. If you think you know how to correct a mistake, do it; you will be told if that's not the correct way, but it's no big deal. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, I'm not totally sure the hat note is the most elegant solution either, since I'm not seeing a compelling reason to prefer a hat note for this one individual over the other four currently on the article/dab/thing. GMGtalk 14:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Well no, GreenMeansGo, when he appears in the main list too. But he is not Armenian. (I actually didn't see you'd added him when I saved my change - I couldn't work out why it was telling me there was a conflict). --ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I get that it's informative to describe the name as being Armenian in origin, but I don't see why there should be any requirement for the people to be. And... a list to the effect to List of Aremenian people named Sevåg is probably overly specific enough to well be a WP:LISTN no-no. GMGtalk 18:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The nationalities of people who have the name is irrelevant, but it's simply not correct to add Øystein Sevåg to a list of people called Sevag, since he doesn't bear that name - the Norwegian surname Sevåg is not the same name as the Armenian surname Sevag. (Another Norwegian person with the surname Sevåg is Trond Abrahamsen, actually Trond Sevåg Abrahamsen.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Umm... but doesn't the search software treat them the same? I actually just a little while ago created the redirect because if you wikilinked Sevåg it was redlinked, but if you searched for it it took you to Sevag. Anyway... then I guess the variation itself could be a separate page with a hatnote on the first? GMGtalk 18:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Profero. Thanks for pointing this out. I don't know if there's a way to force the search not to ignore diacritics, but that wouldn't help most English speaking readers anyway. I've added a hatnote to Sevag, directing readers to the Sevåg article. --ColinFine (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all! At least it seems I'm in good company. And thanks ColinFine for doing what I wasn't bold enough to do without seeking advice. It'll be interesting to see if the problem is solved later by someone somehow 'deeper in the system'. It might seem there could be similar problems with diacritics elsewhere on WP. Obviously many people using 'diacritical' keyboards just skip the diacritic, which in a few similar cases might help. By the way, searching Konůpek leads to a different kind of result page. I'll leave it all to the gurus. Thanks again, Profero (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
You can pay attention to diacritics that are usually ignored (which varies by language of the project) by using insource. The search insource:Sevåg only returns Sevåg, though the snippets are in wikitext. TJones (WMF) (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Articles about personal names serve two functions: similarly to a dab page they help navigate to the articles about the people with that name, and they provide encyclopedic information about the name. If a certain name is found independently in more than one culture, then we have a conflict between these two functions: prioritising navigation would lead to including all people in the list regardless of where the name comes from; focussing on encyclopedicity would normally entail the creation of separate articles for each name. As for Sevag, The Norwegian name is unlikely to be notable at this stage (see WP:APONOTE), so a separate article about it is out of the question. Given that there's only one person with that name, any potential ambiguity is sufficiently resolved by the hatnote. If more people with this name end up having wikipedia articles (and we choose to do something about that), then either a separate article can be created, or the current one can be reworked into being about both names, inelegant though this might be. I wouldn't advise people to go out of their way creating such articles: most are of only borderline encyclopedicity, even when they formally fit the inclusion criterion (itself entirely navigation-based) it's unlikely there will ever be the sort of sources (WP:GNG) we would need for an article that is not a mere dictionary entry (WP:NOTDIC). – Uanfala (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I posted about the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#"å" can go directly to search match with "a". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Notable Topic - Dr Reg Pascoe

Hi everyone! I'm looking to get some experience on Wikipedia in terms of editing and creating articles, and thought drafting up one of my own would be a good place to start. I'm a writer and am currently writing a biography on Dr Reginald Pascoe, an Australian equine veterinarian who died late last year. He's widely known in the Australian horse community; famous within both the national and international veterinary community; he published numerous papers during his lifetime and co-authored 6 books; he pioneered various technologies and treatments throughout his career; he played a key role in Australia's horse and racing communities during his career; and, he was awarded an Order of Australia for his services to vet science. So I think that qualifies him as a notable, but I'd love to hear from some other people whether they think this ticks the boxes. Thanks so much! Cheers, Ana AZPascoe (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello AZPascoe Welcome to our friendly Teahouse. Please don't take this the wrong way, but drafting an article of your own to "gain some experience" is the worse possible way of starting to edit here. It's like saying I want to get on a race horse in the Grand National to get some experience of horseriding. Writing a new article is one of the hardest things to do here. You clearly know a lot about your subject and, I assume, are passionate about it. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) to determine whether you think he will actually meet our criteria for 'notability' - it's the key element of any article. You've not given any references to third party, independent sources which show how he meets that criterion, so it's hard to comment. But if you genuinely want to contribute to Wikipedia - rather than push your own agenda - start with something you aren't involved with. Learn the basics of editing by making small improvements to exisiting articles. Learn the essentials of editing, referencing and neutral writing in small stages. Show your earnestly want to gain some experience of editing. So far your only edit is to this page. I've not put in a myriad of links to all our policies and guidelines - we do have lots of them. But I will pop by and leave you a welcome message on your talk page with a few useful links you might like to check out. First off, fo and do The Wikipedia Adventure - that'll give you a fun introduction to becoming an editor here. Regards from the UKI. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Nick, I appreciate your response! You're right, I need to get my feet wet first, and I appreciate the link to The Wikipedia Adventure! I think part of the problem is that I'm more worried about editing other people's articles than I am about putting together something of my own, but I'll check out the links and find some other places to get some editing and referencing practice in.
Thanks again!
AZPascoe (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Take my word for it - we'd much rather you learnt the basics before writing an article. I think I'd been here a year before I wrote my first one - can't now remember. Oh, and nobody owns any article here - we work by consensus and cooperation. Add a fact if you can prove it's a fact with a reference. You may know it's a fact, but if you can't WP:CITE a source, we don't want it. Of course, as a writer, there's a myriad of things you could do - even simple copyediting or improving punctuation, or finding and adding references - these are all valid tasks which really help a new editor learn about different jobs. (Take a look at all these outstanding tasks we need doing: WP:BACKLOG. Some are quite technical, but others aren't. Like this one for copyediting) Bit by bit you'll add to your skillset. Then maybe then when you can face doing that article you'll have the knowledge to make a success of it first time. Did I come across a bit grumpy in my reply? - sorry about that. regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi AZPascoe. In addition to the information given to you by Nick Moyes, it might also be a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. There reason I am suggesting this is that you said you want to create an article about Dr Reginald Pascoe, and your choice of username contains the same surname Pascoe. So, if by chance you are a related to Dr. Pascoe or connected to him in any personal or professional way, then there is a very good chance who would be considered to have a conflict-of-interest with respect to anything written about him on Wikipedia. Conflict-of-interest editing is not something expressly forbidden by Wikipedia, but it is something highly discouraged because if can often (most of the time unintentionally) lead to more serious problems. Does this mean you cannot create an article about Dr. Pascoe? No, it does not, it just means that you need to be very careful when doing so and that you should submit a draft for review via Wikipedia:Articles for creation (AfC) so that other more experienced and unconnected editors can review it an clean it up as needed. The main point as to whether an article can or should be written has to do with Wikipedia:Notability (people) can be met. If it can be clearly shown that he does, then an article can be written; if not, then really shouldn't be written. Finally, two other pages you might want to take a look at are Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. The last one is titled as such since lots of people try to write an Wikipedia:Autobiography about themselves, but the information contained therein is still quite useful. Basically, an article can be edited by anyone in the world at anytime, and pretty much all the Wikipedia community can hopre for is that these edits are improvements made in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines; the community kind of self-regulates itself and acts accordingly when they aren't, but articles (except in certain specific cases) are typically not locked to limit who may edit them. Moreover, no single person (e.g., article creator, article subject, etc.) has any final ultimate editorial control over article content, which means that negative content (if any exists) can be added as long as it is done in accordance consensus and relevant policies/guidelines. Some consideration may be given to the concerns for privacy, etc., especially when dealing with content about living persons as explained in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia, but policy/guidelines and consensus in general determine what to leave in and what to leave out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
AZPascoe, you wrote "I'm more worried about editing other people's articles than I am about putting together something of my own". They're not other people's articles. No-one owns the articles here, they're all common property. And every good article has been worked on by many different people. If you're "worried", please be aware that you'll run into a lot more flak trying to create a new article, than improving existing articles. Maproom (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

How do I get notified about the edits that I have made?

I have made four edits and only got notified for the first one. How do I get notified about my edits?Uyu Ita (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Uyu Ita. The fact of the matter is that we don't routinely get notified when we make edits -- which given that some of us make many dozens of edits (or even hundreds) a day is just as well! Generally, you're only likely to be notified after an edit if someone disagrees and reverts it. But that being said, I looked over your contributions so far, and you're making neutrally phrased statements supported by proper references, so you're much less likely than the average newcomer to be reverted. Good work. Ravenswing 07:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Uyu Ita. I'm not sure what kind of notification you were looking for but you can see all your edits by clicking Contributions at the top right of any page. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for replying guysUyu Ita (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

moving draft page from my account to Wikipedia

Hi all I seem to be going in circles about posting my new page to Wikipedia. I click on sumbit for review which triggers a pop-up saying to click on publish, but there is no other button to publish the page. Could you help? Thanks Ewa hermanowicz (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It's the "Publish changes" button below the edit window. (The same button which you presumably used to post your question here.) It used to be labelled "Save changes", as it doesn't actually publish the page to mainspace but just submits it for review, but the WMF changed the label on the button. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Limit on templates per article anywhere ?

While adding geo-codes to List of observatory codes I realize that starting at line C63 (first column of the table) the two templates per line (one on the flag the other the Coord) are no longer expanded til the end of the article. This happens roughly half way through a table with roughly 2000 rows. Is there a limit near 2000 for the count of templates in an article? - 149.217.40.222 (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to check, it takes so long to load that table into the editor, to scroll down it, and to save an edit. Regardless of any limit of the number of templates, it might be a good idea to split the table into smaller tables of maybe 100 rows. Maproom (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The page is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. It's about the total amount of transcluded content, including during processing of templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

What is this and why am I here?

Just saw this a while ago and now I decided to care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morintango (talk • contribs) 16:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Morintango and welcome to the Teahouse where you can ask questions about editing Wikipedia. So far, your edits seem to be a mixture of intelligent edits and silly edits that have been reverted. Please can we have more of the former and none of the latter, then you will be showing that you care about Wikipedia. Dbfirs 16:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Why has my Sandbox been deleted?

Dear WP,

I am trying to resume working on a better version of a page about the history of the commercial property company, Hiller Parker May and Rowden. All we would like to see is an acknowledgement that the company existed.

On my Sandbox page now, it says, "16:25, 23 May 2017 RickinBaltimore (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Philjones573/sandbox (G8: Redirect to deleted page "Draft:Hillier Parker May and Rowden" (TW))"

What should I do? Grateful for your help.

Philjones573 (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Philjones573, The article was moved all over the place, you can not find it at Draft:Hillier Parker May and Rowden. ~ GB fan 12:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Your draft is at Draft:Hillier Parker May and Rowden. It was deleted as an abandoned draft, but restored in November at your request. You are aware of the various previous discussions. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) Hello, Philjones573. First of all, the unpleasant stuff: if you are an employee/contractor who was instructed to edit Wikipedia pages about that company or related topics as part of your job, please read WP:PAID and make the appropriate mandatory disclosure (what you have on your user page right now is not enough).
If you look at the logs for that page (admittedly, that is hard to find), you will see that the page was deleted back in May 2017, and at the same time your sandbox (which was a simple redirect to the page). It was restored in November 2017 (but the redirect not reinstated).
However, I will note that if the company is not notable (in Wikipedia's meaning of the term), no article should ever be written. That you wish to see an acknowledgement that the company existed on Wikipedia is none of our problems; we follow our own guidelines. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Why should I lose my work?

Is it fair to say that this article as it stands now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hillier_Parker_May_and_Rowden

is improved on the first attempt?

I have learned a lot about what WP articles are supposed to look like. And I have learned a lot about the subject. That is why the article is so different now.

My friend Harold made a shorter version of this, with less detail. But I made an effort to study this subject because it was interesting and enjoyed doing it. Why should I abandon details that I found in copies of Estates Gazette from 1950s through to 1990s, the commercial property journal, and have taken the trouble to write up? Precisely which referenced detail is too detailed to be considered? If you can tell me that, then I will be happy to take it out?

No, I am not being paid to sit here and complain. I am doing this to help a friend and this is the knowledge that we wish to share.

Philjones573 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason whatever for you to "lose your work": all you need to do is copy it into a document format of your choice on your own computer. However, Wikipedia is not a free online depository for whatever information anyone has a personal interest in. To merit an article in Wikipedia, a subject has to be able to fulfil various conditions, particularly those detailed in Wikipedia:Notable, and the article has to demonstrate this by the use of suitable Wikipedia: Reliable sources.
It may well be possible for an article on this subject to do so, but the editors who have reviewed the draft do not think it has done so yet. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.83.136 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring in Estonian Air Force article

Hello, I would like to know what would be the right course of action in this case? Firstly, an explanation of the issue. An edit was made in the article on 31 January. The edit changed the formatting of an equipment table with the explanation "(pull image(s) not for tables WP:IMAGEMOS)". Upon reviewing the guideline, I saw nothing that would support the rationale for this edit. The guideline only stated that images should not be used in place of tables or charts. I interpreted that as "Don't use images instead of tables or charts", which is backed up by the dictionary definition of in place of. I also later consulted the Manual of Style for tables and there was no mention that images should not be used in tables, only that they should not be used in headers. As far as I'm concerned, using images in equipment tables seems like an extremely common practice in Wikipedia. Furthermore, the edit deprecated the information provided in the table, made it incorrect and also broke one of the references. Based on that I reverted the change and explained my reasoning on the talk page. After this, another edit was made of the same nature. This time the reasoning provided was that the table didn't comply with Aircraft lists guideline. I accepted the reasoning behind removing images based on that. However, because the edit again deprecated information and broke a reference, I decided to restore the table without images. This was followed by what seems to be a badly formatted (posted incorrectly under my AFC sumbission notice) fake warning, which stated that I was in violation of the three-revert-rule. Considering that I had made only two reversions, that was clearly not the case. Following this, I posted an explanation on the Wikipedia editors talk page,again explaining my reasoning behind the edits and specifically emphasized that I was fine with the edits as long as they didn't deprecate information. Today I noticed that another edit was made from an IP (without an account), which was pretty much the same as before. The edit again deprecated information (deleted the notes I had put in a different section) and broke a reference. The comment for the edit provided no clear reasoning for it. The comment stated "(→‎Aircraft: not applicable for a table this size Help:Table)". I looked up the help page and again checked the aircraft lists guideline (including the talk page) and saw absolutely nothing that would support this reasoning. At this point, it clearly looks like edit warring and I am unsure what to do in this case. I do not want to engage in an edit war, but the information on the page is again incomplete and references broken. What should I do? --Estonian1885 (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the most recent edit also seems to contravene the aircraft list guideline, which states that: "Images should not be placed before a list such that they push it downwards from its section heading or page title in mobile browsers or shrink it sideways in desktop browsers." I tend to tile the browser to one side of the desktop when I'm editing, and the image that has been placed next next to the tables does indeed shrink one of the tables sideways.--Estonian1885 (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Estonian1885. You have done the right thing by discussing the matter on the Talk page. But bringing it here is not an appropriate next step: please read about dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your input! I am completely new to this sort of situation and just looking for the best way to solve it.--Estonian1885 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced dictionary entries - delete, or tag for wikitionary?

Is there a template to mark articles as being better suited to Wiktionary if they don't have sources (so don't meet the inclusion criteria linked to from {{Copy to Wiktionary}}), or should they be PRODDED (or left alone)? I came across Melius abundare quam deficere and U.N.P.O.C. while going through orphaned articles and I'm not sure how best to deal with them. None of the options at WP:DICDEF § Handling problems look quite right. Mortee (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Mortee. I don't really work with Wiktionary that much, but at least in the two example you cite, probably the most apparent course of action would be to redirect/merge U.N.P.O.C. to Glossary of nautical terms, and Melius abundare quam deficere to List of Latin phrases (full). Hope this helps some, even if it doesn't really answer your central question much. GMGtalk 20:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Both excellent suggestions though, thank you. Mortee (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

needed: removal of "global blacklist" alert on wiki page

	I had last edited this page and removed the indicated blacklisted PDF article

on : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Collett

its a month later and the Notice below is still appearing on the page header.... I do not know further actions to whitelisting this link. Can a Wiki editor please rescan and validate this page.? _____________

"An automated process has detected links on this page on the local or global blacklist. If the links are appropriate you may request whitelisting by following these instructions; otherwise consider removing or replacing them with more appropriate links. (To hide this tag, set the "invisible" field to "true")

List of blacklisted links: [hide] 

   "https://susancollett.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/cr250-58-61.pdf"

       Triggered by \bfiles\.wordpress\.com\b on the global blacklist

________________

thank you for input toward solving this issue, SensoriamSensoriam (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sensoriam. When you removed the link you could have also removed the message. I've done so now. [1] --NeilN talk to me 21:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

A map needs annotating

There is a map in Pembrokeshire#Demography that needs the Pembrokeshire county boundary marking on it. Is there someone who can do this? Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Not to worry, I have found the Graphics Lab/Map Workshop and asked there. Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Added a submission for Amazon_HQ2, but my edit was deleted~

My edit was for the Bids section which is labeled incomplete and can be expanded. I cited an article in the New York Times. Went back to find it deleted. I can't figure out why or by whomLiminalNexus (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@LiminalNexus: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In consulting the edit history, your edit was deleted here as "promotional spam" by SounderBruce. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Your edit was undone by SounderBruce for "Promotional spam". You can bring this up on the Amazon HQ2 talk page, which SounderBruce is very active on. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 18:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I appreciate the information. I'll reach outLiminalNexus (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@LiminalNexus: Your edit, while cited to a reliable source, was removed because the bids section is meant to only list locations that are bidding. "Day 1 OK" is the name of the organization that is bidding, and listing the organization involved for every bid would be confusing to readers. SounderBruce 02:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

How do I talk with author/editor

Author has no talk page RANDOMTHOUGHTS (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Click the red link next to their name that says "Talk" and create the talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Any further recommendations?

Hello, I signed up as a wikipedia member today and I practiced in TWA. It is very clear and fun. I read pillars of wikipedia, manners, policies, teahouse talks below,etc. And I will come back for my first article later. I want to help wikipedia by translating English Articles into my native language, Thai. In the future, I might even translate it to other languages as well because I want to be a polyglot. Any helps, recommendations, tips and tricks are very appreciated. See you later, wikipedians :D. Nattapong F. Kaewthanom (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nattapong F. Kaewthanom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks you could attempt. I recommend that you don't try it until you have far more experience in improving existing articles. It's sad to see how often a new editor tries to create an article, finds it's very difficult, gets discouraged, and makes no further attempt to contribute. Maproom (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
In addition to the advice given to you by Maproom, you might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Translation. Translating an English Wikipedia article into Thai for use on Thai Wikipedia might seem like a fairly straightforward thing to do, but article translation actually it much more complex than it appears because of copyright concerns and because each Wikipedia may have different policies and guidelines. Since you are a native Thai speaker, you might want to ask about this on Thai Wikipedia, but the editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand probably can help as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair to Link to Future Article on Another Page?

I wrote a draft about the Positive Displacement Pipette (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Positive_displacement_pipette) to expand on the corresponding section in the main Pipette page. Is it within Wikipedia's guidelines to put a link to the "main article" on positive displacement pipettes on the pipette page, so the link is already then when the page is approved?

Thank you. Cglife.bmarcus (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cglife.bmarcus. Wait until the article is approved. I have tried putting in wikilinks in corresponding pages before approving articles I was reviewing, only to have the links removed before I got all the steps of approving the article finished. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Cglife.bmarcus. It's possible to add red links to non-existent articles under certain conditions, but these are usually links to article pages; Adding a wikilink to an existing draft is probably not a good idea and something which should be avoided. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Write the article first and Wikipedia:Namechecking for some more information on when adding even a redlink might not be appropriate for certain types of articles or sections of articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Rather than a wikilink to an existing draft being "probably not a good idea", MOS:LINKSTYLE says specifically: "Do not create links to user, WikiProject, essay or draft pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself". --David Biddulph (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding info and a source to Mendoza, Texas

Hello! I want to add some info that I found to the article of Mendoza, Texas. Will anyone please tell me if this is a good source? If so, how can I fully cite it, and use it as a repeated citation if I can do this? Thanks for reading, and I can't wait for some more input! Colman2000 (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

As I told you on my talk page, Colman2000, that is not a reliable source, as it is an unvetted website operated by "someguys". The source they listed is not a reliable source either as it is a self published book. As for your method question, You can reuse a reference very simply. Just replace the leading tag for the reference (<ref>) the first time you use it with (<ref name="">), putting the name you want to use for the ref inside the quotes. For subsequent uses, you only need to put (<ref name=""/>), with the same name inside the quotes. John from Idegon (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Colman2000: I'm going to say this here, rather than in answer to you on my own talk page - please, please, please, PLEASE stop asking the same question to multiple people in multiple places! I really love your enthusiasm, and as I've just said on my talk page, you could become a very good, long-term editor. And we need those. I'm happy to encourage and help you. You have the keenness - but perhaps a bit too much of it at times, though I suspect some editors will be a bit less patient. I'm pleased you sought opinion on the sources you found. That's a good thing to do. John's answer was better than mine would have been. But ask a question in one place, please. Wait a day - maybe two. Check out their User Contributions if you like - see if they're active. If they're not, wait another couple of days. Do something else in the meantime. Then ask elsewhere. People can't always answer you immediately, and it's very unfair to expect two or three different volunteer editors to spend time answering the same question for you. Ironically, I was answering a post from John from Idegon and then another editor's question and then was about to answer yours. I'm so glad I came her and saw John's answer to you. Please acknowledge that you understand why I'm asking this of you. You can do it on my talk page if you wish - but it's really important you understand, my friend. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Ok. Thank you, buddy. Regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

These edits may be of interest to John from Idegon and Nick Moyes, in the light of the advice given. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, David Biddulph. I reverted the junk edit. I'm also done with babysitting, so please don't bother letting me know again. John from Idegon (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Understood. He has told me that he doesn't want my advice, so I think he's running out of help. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

My edits are taken personally, what should I do?

To ne more accurate, I feel the person entering information is not recently up to date with new findings. They continue to enter opinionated attachments to factual items I have entered. What shall I do?Yvonnedelavega (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yvonnedelavega and welcome to the Teahouse! If this is about the article Maharlika‎, the anonymous editor who edited just after you did add some content that was not very neutrally written (only one edit though, so they did not really "continue to" do it), and such edits can be reverted per Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. However, I'm afraid I have also reverted your edits, because they changed the whole focus of the article, and there were some neutrality problems there as well. I've added more information to your user talk page. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft: ClusterCS Cloud Based Control Panel

Hello! I am new to Wikipedia contributions, I am trying to add a software here, wrote an article and I didnt understand quite why they deleted it or rejected. For the reference parts, I have a lot of them but from my understanding I cannot associate a reference with blogs (even tho I am talking about big blogs in the IT industry, like TutsPlus, CMS critic, who are very important for anyone in this industry and also they are trendsetters). I really want to make it right and make sure I can add it based on Wikipedias requirements therefore I would appreciate all the help i can get with this.

Iuliana Iuliana Constantin (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Iuliana Constantin: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was rejected because it does not offer any independent reliable sources that indicate how it is notable(as Wikipedia defines it). In order to merit an article here, independent, third party sources must have written about this software, and the article content must almost solely be based on those sources. It is not enough to merely tell about what the software does. You are correct that blogs do not typically count as reliable sources, this is in part because blogs usually do not have any editorial control. Acceptable sources would be things like news stories(but not press releases), independent reviews, or anything not related to the software or the company that makes it. You may want to read Your First Article before proceeding; successfully writing a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia.
I would ask if you are associated with this software in some way(do you work for the manufacturer or some such). Certain policies may apply to you if that is the case. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
It is important to consider that the reliability of a source depends on context, and high-profile blogs can be a decent source in some contexts; however, blogs are rarely the sole reliable source for provable matters of fact. For instance, a blog is not RS for a claim that a product runs on X GB of RAM; but multiple blogs can be the source for a claim that the product was criticized by topic experts for feature X (assuming those blogs are indeed written/edited by recognized topic experts). TigraanClick here to contact me 12:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

When the Talk discussion page does not rectify differences

Where or whom do you go when it appears the "Talk" format on editing does not seem to be helpful and individuals continue to remove your changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMoses (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi RMoses. There are various stages of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution which you can try (in order) assuming that this is purely a disagreement over a content issue. You might also try asking for assistance and one of the various community wide noticeboards or relevant WikiProjects as well. As long as you do not try and canvass for support of your position, asking for other input should not be an issue. However, if this is more of a behavioral matter than a content dispute, then you might try asking for help at one of the administrator noticeboards.
Finally, one last thing might be to take a step back and try and put yourself in the shoes of these other editors; if the content you are trying to the article is being continuously removed by others, it is possible that the problem is really with the content itself and not the other editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project and content disputes are resolved through discussion and establishing a consensus. If the other editor(s) are ignoring consensus or relevant policies/guidelines and removing what you're adding, then they might be the problem. If, however, the consensus is not in favor including such content and you keep trying to force it into the article, then you might be the problem. You've provided no specific details or links in your original post, so without knowing more it's hard to give more specific advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The article was "Prime number theorem". I made my initial edits which were removed. After seeing their reasons I accepted their justification. Using their comments I made a last edit today in the statement column of the page where the logarithm they were not wanting to be used was used. Since this was in a graph I thought it at least appropriate to place a note saying the usage of the two different logarithm notation were the same. The comment back was to even remove this small explanation and with the comment back to me as "not helpful". I am not sure why placing a note to tie the two annotations being used as the same, so as to avoid confusion for many of the readers,was not helpful. Thank-you for your information above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMoses (talk • contribs) 12:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
After looking at the article's talk page, it appears that you are in a content dispute with multiple editors. So, this means you have to try and convince others that your suggestion is improvement that is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. The nature of that discussion might be a bit too technical to be resolved at a place like the Teahouse, but perhaps you can ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Just try and be careful how you word your request per Wikipedia:Canvassing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you. I appreciate your time and help in this matter. Sincerely Rick Moses

Translation of articles

Hi, I have a question. Is an article still viable if it is nothing but a word-for-word translation of a foreign language article off of another foreign Wikipedia? I was reviewing Pedro Pérez Fernández (economista) and decided to nominate it under CSD A2 and an editor removed the tag, only referencing notability. Are translations like that allowed without citations? Snickers2686 (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Snickers2686. To answer your question, the measure of the viability of a translation is -- when all is said and done -- how good a translation is it? Beyond the title (which should of course be changed to "economist"), it seems to be in proper English, with proper grammar and spelling, and is devoid of weasel wording or peacock terms. It is therefore not a candidate for A2, which is for articles that are in a foreign language.

That the article lacks citations is another matter, but that's a content dispute that should be handled either by tagging or by due diligence for reliable sources. Ravenswing 07:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

multiple wiki accounts

Is it possible to have multiple wikipedia accounts for an individual?Pranoyz11 (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pranoyz11: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. A summary of policy in this area can be found at this link; to answer you here, there are legitimate circumstances where using more than one account is permitted, such as one for your personal computer and another for a public computer(like at a library) where you might not want to use your regular login information. In that case, you need to clearly identify each account as one for public computers and one for your private computer. If you have no specific reason to use more than one account, though, you should not. Using multiple accounts illegitimately is considered sock puppetry and not permitted. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I would add that a list of legitimate uses of alternate accounts is located at WP:VALIDALT. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Notice that this list is not exhaustive, but almost all legitimate cases require you to disclose the existence of the other account across user pages. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Urgent help needed; My submission was not acepted on WIKI.

Dear friends, see below WIKIs reason for declining my publication request:

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was:

"The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you".

Thanks in advance for helping me guys! Mekasnoop4u (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Your draft was deleted, but assuming it is the content of your user page (not really appropriate BTW, see Help:Userspace draft), you need references to show "notability" in Wikipedia's meaning of the term. If no such references exists, no article should be written.
By the way, that request is certainly not "urgent" by any means. Please refrain from such spurious claims in the future, it lowers rather than increases your chance of a reply. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mekasnoop4u: The first thing you should do is to go and blank User:Mekasnoop4u, it is a blatant fake article. Please do so now. Sam Sailor 12:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sam Sailor;

I'm trying to understand this submission rother:

"The first thing you should do is to go and blank User:Mekasnoop4u, it is a blatant fake article. Please do so now".

How do i blank it brother?

Or do you mean i should change it?

Mekasnoop4u (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tigraan:

Thanks for the tips.

Noted brother!

Mekasnoop4u (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You should delete its entire contents. It's written to give the impression that it is an article, and it isn't, it's a user page. If you want to copy the content to a user sandbox, or to a draft, first, you can do that. Maproom (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
No action is needed now, User:Mekasnoop4u was deleted by Yunshui under U5 a few minutes after my posting here. Sam Sailor 12:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

What is a User Page actually for?

If it truly is for recording your contributions, isn't more like a ledger of good edits than a User Page? How can I use it properly and to its full potential according to the rules?

Morintango (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You can use it to tell us a little about yourself (but not personal details if you are still at school). Also you can indicate your areas of interest and how you hope to improve the encyclopaedia. Dbfirs 17:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
See WP:USERPAGE. There are restrictions on how it can be used but the scope of use is wide. Bus stop (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Morintango, one thing you don't want to do is add copy, or especially links, that serve to promote anything, whether it's your own career or business, or something you simply like. PROMO is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Question about draft article on Yvonne Spicer, and Infobox question

Hello,

I am working on an article regarding Dr. Yvonne Spicer, first mayor of Framingham, MA, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yvonne_M._Spicer. I think it is pretty much done except for a short section on her political background, and I would appreciate some feedback.

Are the general content, number of links, and citations appropriate? Why is the Infobox not displaying? What other issues may need to be addressed?

Thank you.

Aatist

(talk) 06:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aatist (talk • contribs) 06:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Aatist. There was an syntax error in the infobox template which I fixed. If what is written in the article is true, then she's probably notable enough for an article to be written about her per WP:BIO or WP:NPOL, but there's still some unsourced content (such as awards, etc.) which might be challenged by someone down the road per WP:BLPSOURCES. Overall, I've seen much worse drafts than this, so I don't see any problem with submitting this for a review via WP:AFC. Even if it's rejected, the reviewers should be able to point out specific issues which need improving. You might also want to ask for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government.
As for the number of citations needed for a draft to be accepted, it's more of an issue of "quality" than "quantity" when it comes to citations. What is generally needed are independent/secondary reliable sources which show Spicer has received then significant coverage needed to establish Wikipedia notability. Lots of trivia/indirect sources might look get in the reference section, but they really are of little value.
Finally, just going to ask, but don't take it the wrong way. Are you connected to Spicer personally or professionally or being paid to create this article? If any of those things apply to you, please take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Even if these page don't directly apply to your situation, you might want to browse through them anyway because they contain lots of useful information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, I have added those citations, and finished the Political experience section. I have no personal or professional connection with Yvonne Spicer and am not being paid for writing this. I'm writing about her to fulfill a New Year's resolution to help expand the representation of women, particularly women of color, on Wikipedia. Hopefully more to come! So I will go ahead and submit this for review. Thank you for your help and advice.

Aatist (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This is regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaving

LynxTufts is clearly associated with, http://www.lynxexpression.com , a site that sells shaving products. He puts his link on the page http://www.lynxexpression.com/grooming/shaving/tips-on-shaving (Source - 29) which contains products and is a commercial site. He then removes link I post and am not associated with. The link I post is a high quality blog post about razor burns. LynxTufts does not want other sources similar to his source (Source - 29) because he is trying to sell products on that page where as the link I posted does not. 2 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoonthecloud (talk • contribs)

Commercial sites are not necessarily bad sources, although I would prefer to see a non-commercial source used here. You, however, are adding instructions to readers to the article, by telling readers to "Rub a few drops on freshly shaven skin to avoid razor burn". That is not appropriate, per WP:NOTGUIDE. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Infoonthecloud has been posting a 'how to avoid razor burn' link as a reference on Shaving. I have been reverting these edits, because the link is hosted on a commercial website (99centrazor.com). The user has edited my messages I left for them and reposted them on my talk page, while accusing me of posting "the same type of link" (though I'm not sure where I have done this). They have readded their content for a third time of the Shaving article. Before reverting again I want to ask whether I am correct in removing the link due to being hosted on a commercial website. LynxTufts (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I have not analyzed the situation to know whether you were correct to revert (though I strongly suspect you were). However, you should never, ever, revert anything repeatedly except 100% blatant vandalism (borderline case at best here), even if you tried to discuss it and the other person ignored that. Doing so is edit warring (4 reverts is the bright line, but 3 reverts could be edit warring still). I see, however, that your posting here has attracted others who reverted in your place. Please warn users and/or report them to WP:EWN or WP:3RRN next time this happens. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

deletion review

How do I request a review of a page that was deleted citing incorrect information? 92.232.169.228 (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, speak to the administrator who deleted the article (their name, along with the reason the article was deleted, will appear at the top of the window if you enter the name of the deleted article in the search box). If they're unable to help and you genuinely feel the deletion went against Wikipedia policy, the instructions to follow are at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Without knowing what the article in question is, I'm unable to advise you whether any appeal is likely to succeed; Wikipedia actually has quite strict rules about which topics warrant their own article, and a lot of deletions that appear unfair are actually the correct application of Wikipedia policy. ‑ Iridescent 19:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, because you are editing from an IP address as an unregistered editor, no one can check what deletion discussions you have taken part in. It would be helpful to you to register an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Should the Joseph Kony article have a neutrality flag?

Hello,

I'm quite new to editing Wikipedia, but have been trying to get more involved. I came across the Joseph Kony page, which I believe has some neutrality and POV issues. I made some edits just now, and I'd appreciate feedback on those, as well as general opinion about whether the page in general is problematic.

Sentences such as this seem worrying: "Kony has been implicated in abduction and recruitment of child soldiers. While there is no doubt that Kony recruited children, the government of Uganda has equally been accused of abducting and recruiting children into the army."

This seems quite non-encyclopedic to me. The claim about the Ugandan government's use of child soldiers, regardless of accuracy, is not evidence that Kony did not use child soldiers. I would say (maybe personal opinion) that it also does not excuse the use of child soldiers. I would be inclined to take it out completely, or at the very least change the phrasing so that it's not presented as a counterargument to accusations against Kony.

There are also some areas where language is a little overly romantic (I changed a sentence saying "Supporters and detractors alike believe Kony is possessed by spirits" because I don't believe that statement to be true of most of his detractors).

I know it probably would have been more efficient for me to flag this article for someone to look at, instead of asking someone to look at it to help me decide whether I should flag it for someone to look at, but I am interested in getting feedback from others if possible, since I'm not an experienced editor. Thanks for your time! Ludicous (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you about the false equivalency deal, having just looked at the article; the two sentences immediately following the lead one does sound like an apologia, and since that is neither the Ugandan article or one on child soldiers generally, I just pulled them. I also just pulled the "Arrow Boys" section, failing to see the direct relevance to Kony as well. Ravenswing 20:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

How can the article I created in my sandbox be published as a new article in Wikipedia?

Dear All,

I carefully created and edited a new article: Stratis Haviaras, that does not yet exist, about an author I admire and I have thouroughly researched to find data about (Stratis Haviaras). How can this article be published from my sandbox as a regular article in Wikipedia? Should I wait for the Wikipedia administrators to check it and publish it or should I do something myself? (I press the publish button but still, it is not shown, no one can see and read it, and I wonder whether I should do something that I cannot find out yet). Thank you for your valuable help MatinaG (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@MatinaG: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I wished to inform you that the "publish" button is actually what saves your edits; it used to say "save changes" but was changed to "publish changes". I believe that it was felt by those implementing the change that "publish" was more accurate. So your sandbox is saved and visible to all, assuming they know to find it. It is not yet, as you surmised, formally a part of the encyclopedia. That requires you to submit the page for review, I will add the appropriate template to your sandbox to allow you to do so. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your prompt response! I really appreciate it! Please do let me know what can I do to submit this page for review. I have a fiend in France who would like to translate the page in French, because the author is widely known and there is not a page in French either!

Thank you for your assistance, MatinaG (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Draft:Stratis Haviaras. Strictly speaking, that is unnecessary; use of Draft space is optional. I could move it to article space for you, but there are some (fairly minor) issues; and empty section and some missing citations. You might want to address those issues first. Other than that: Nice work for your first article! Mduvekot (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_719&oldid=1142564274"