Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 744

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 740←Archive 742Archive 743Archive 744Archive 745Archive 746→Archive 750

I am learning about Image-use guidelines, Is this a sandbox issue, or is the template in need of repair? See here.Deermouse (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Deermouse. I'm not quite certain what you are asking about. If you mean that some of the categories shown at the bottom of the page (which I don't think are anything to do with any template) are redlinks, then the answer is that a Category comes into existence as soon as it is included in a page, but the link does not go blue until the Category itself has been edited to add some text (or templates, or parent categories, or anything else). Since most categories should be in some parent category, this is the obvious edit to make. See WP:Categorization#Creating category pages. --ColinFine (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, and very fine skill at deducing. Let's see if I understand, in sandbox at Image use information, I pasted the template for license and added the links for where that particular image is being used (removed the hyperlink code), I am not aware of adding a template for categories, could you explain how categories got there, and now along with being sure of proper attribution/license, I need to understand categories, and their generation. Creating these scenarios on my user page and performing the functions we discuss, seeing what happens and resolving issues will help me become a refined editor.Deermouse (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Deermouse. According to the page history, in this diff, you introduced the Categories directly, along with the other material. Looking at c:File:Qian Xuan - Early Autumn.jpg, it appears that you copied the "image description" and "licensing" sections from that Commons description page. The (Commons) categories for that page happen to be declared in the Licensing section, and you copied them over along with the licence template. --ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Totally makes sense, thx - to be sure inspect this implementation of using templates and categories.Deermouse (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

new page

Hey so im making a page on a professional photographer, and he is more of a private photographer so there arent many secondary links about him. I used his website, websites that reference him, and pages about him. Can yall think of other stuff maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winbarker23 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Winbarker23: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In order to merit an article on Wikipedia, a person must have been written about in independent reliable sources with in depth coverage. Those sources must indicate how the person meets notability guidelines, in the case of a photographer those at WP:ARTIST. If it is true, as you state that there aren't many secondary sources about him, I'm not certain your article will be able to remain. A company profile Twitter account, and webpages of this person's businesses are not acceptable as sources to establish notability. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

slurs in Talk pages?

is it against the rules to use racist or islamophobic slurs in talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadiqKhanFan (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely, SadiqKhanFan. Wikipedia:Civility is prescribed and enforced. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

thank you Finnusertop — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadiqKhanFan (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

On what pages have you seen such slurs, SadiqKhanFan? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

none dear comrade S — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadiqKhanFan (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

SadiqKhanFan: you have created the article Mohammad Mahmoud. It needs some improvement if it is to remain as a Wikipedia article (this is no criticism of the imam himself).
It relates to the article Finsbury Park attack, which could also be improved. It does not mention Mohammed Mahmoud, though it should. It might be best to abandon the article Mohammad Mahmoud, and move its content to Finsbury Park attack. Maproom (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

maproom I agree and would like you to move the content there the article will soon be deleted so please swiftly move the content — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadiqKhanFan (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

What is a page property?

On Special Pages is one for searching for pages by property. Putting page property into either the Help search or article search produces nothing relevant. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello there Deisenbe and welcome to the Teahouse! It appears to have to do with the MediaWiki (software Wikipedia uses) API. You can read more about the properties table here and here. Essentially, it allows for more detailed searches by the looks of it and that special page is present in all media wiki installations (just checked on my own install). I hope that that answers your question. If you have any questions, please do let us know. --All the best, TheSandDoctor Talk 22:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@Deisenbe: The link at Special:SpecialPages#Lists of pages goes to Special:PagesWithProp. Here a page property is certain things a page may have which the software registers, e.g. a DEFAULTSORT and its value, or whether the page contains NOTOC. I see a "Property name:" drop-down box where I can click at the right to see the possible page properties in the feature. The Go button finds pages with the selected property. Many or all of the properties for a given page are shown by clicking "Page information" under "Tools" in the left pane. See also mw:Manual:Page_props table. mw: is the wiki about the MediaWiki software itself and often has more information about it than the help pages at the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Creating a new wikipedia article about faranto e.V.

Hello and Dear Team of Teahouse Q&A Board,

I would like to write a new wikipedia thread about our organization faranto e.V. faranto is a registered Club in Germany, which is part of the ESN Germany. The Club was formed at 2001 in Dresden and its task is to strengthen the international cultural understanding.

Currently we are using Mediawiki to make publish our meetings and storyline transparently. [1]

Therefore we have already been in touch with programming via html5. However we would like to write for the wikipedia article a complete new decription.

We are also available on facebook [2], website [3] or from the location inside the Campus of the University.

HTW Dresden c/o Faranto e.V. Friedrich-List-Platz 1 01069 Dresden Germany

My question is now, if it is from the contents possible to create an article, because faranto is part of the ESN. The Erasmus Student Network (ESN) has now an amount of clubs and counting every single of them seems for myself not meaningful. However the Club is financially and executioned independant. So it is therefore on paper (e.V.) annd not part of the university even if the members are part of it. faranto is also listed inside the government in Saxony(Bundesland of Germany) [4] With 200 exchange students each year for 17 years, i am not quite sure if creating a new wikipedia article is worth it.

If not, then we remain on our Media wiki :) Thank you beforehand for your reponse! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.30.212.42 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. We already have an article about the Erasmus Student Network. In general, we do not have articles about local clubs that are branches of larger national or international organizations. Please read the section WP:BRANCH and the whole guideline that it is part of. The relevant passage is: "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Do reliable sources outside the Dresden area devote significant coverage to your club? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Cullen,
Well. Counting the university Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Dresden wouldn't count probably
  • HTW Dresden[5].
Searching in Google for faranto would also give several articles but more locally.
And from a more accurate time last year
  • 25 years HTW Dresden [6]
    • Therefore Strg+F: faranto
There is also an
  • entry that we are listed in Saxony Volunteer Clubs. [7].
And somehow we are mentioned in:
The more important relevant awards, that we have received are:
I am not quiet sure, if that is enough relevance.
Shouldn't i not better write to the german wikipedia and how much difference would that be to post an article to the german wikipedia compared to the now "english" wikipedia? :)
Best Greetings
Viet Dang

can someone paid to me to create his page/article? how much i can charge for an article ? do i have to pay to wikipedia if i get paid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravipratap singhs (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Ravipratap singhs, if you want to find people to pay you for that, it's up to you. The community will not help you in finding customers or determining prices. If you decide to do that, you don't need to pay Wikipedia anything. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Finnusertop, Thank you for helping me Ravipratap singhs (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Hellom, Rabipratap singhs. I am going to say a little more in reply than Finnusertop. My personal advice is, Do not try and do this. Wikipedia does not forbid paid editing, but many editors are hostile to it, and will inspect your work very critically. Wikipedia's rules will require to make a full disclosure of who is paying you to edit. Also, people who pay somebody to create a Wikipedia article about them are usually under the misapprehension they or their employee will have any control whatever over the contents of the article: they will not. And finally, creating articles in Wikipedia is hard - see my first article. Without wanting to be unkind, I don't think you have the experience and skills to do so successfully at present. --ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I support what ColinFine wrote. You clearly don't know what is involved in creating a Wikipedia article. If you took someone's money and promised to do something that you don't know how to do, it would be dishonest. Maproom (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Ravipratap singhs, finally, and most importantly, Wikipedia's encyclopedia is built and maintained by unpaid volunteers. They do not appreciate people making mney out the hard work they have provided. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

'Bold textGreetings I am grateful to you all I am 84 years ol trying to make a comeback on my own quarantine as I am in a wheelchair

You eiting system is too cumbersome for me for the ancient school of copy-eiting an sening the ocument own the shoo I will appreciate it if I can use my ol message irectly on the ocument as a raft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chander perkash (talk • contribs) 02:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chander perkash. I am sorry that you find our editing system cumbersome, but that is how we build this encyclopedia. You may find the Cheatsheet to be useful. It is a handy reference to coding and formatting here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Help from experienced editor wanted

Hello,

First off, I am a physician and have used Wikipedia throughout my life and have a great appreciation for the editors who have created and maintained it and wanted to start by saying thank you.

This is a long post which basically asks for an experienced editor to help update an existing page. If that might be you, please read on.

Last year, my son was diagnosed with a rare disease known as Kabuki Syndrome. I immediately looked at the Wikipedia page, of course. Since that time, I have studied Kabuki extensively including flying my son to world experts in the field to discuss research directions and the details of the disease. I am also active in the largest group of Kabuki patients and family members, which has been a great resource given that most doctors have never heard of the syndrome.

I was discussing with the group my disappointment with poor representation on Wikipedia. The page is quite limited in information, does not direct new parents to the support groups or reputable sources, and is often flat out wrong. The page includes 2 pictures which, although so show some classic facial characterstics, Miss many of the typical features and do not accurately reflect the spectrum which is this disease. The page as a whole does a poor job at showing the spectrum of disease, from the very mild to the very severe. Anyways, I have been wanting to do something for this community I have joined/been thrown into, and I have always had a lot of respect for Wikipedia. Therefore, I would like to update the Kabuki page. I have discussed this with the group (the largest group of Kabuki patients and families in the world, about 2700 members) and everyone 100% agreed that this should be done. I can’t explain how rare anyone agrees with anything on this page, much less 100% agreement. In fact, many affected parties offered to assist as well including other doctors, nurses, therapists, PhDs, etc. The only thing we don’t have is an experienced Wikipedia editor. Upon looking into it, I realize that I will need the help of an advanced editor.

Is there anyone who is a highly experienced Wikipedia editor who could translate information onto the page in an appropriate and efficient manner? To be honest, between work and raising kids (one with special needs) it is hard to find time to do anything, but this is something I would like to do.

If you would like to help a group of people affected by a rare disease to better educate the public, I would love to speak with you.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acdacd123456 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

From the Kabuki syndrome history, appears you have been making additions, but find the process daunting. One suggestion -draft your content in your Sandbox. Only after you are happy with the way the text and citations look there should you paste it into the article. Another suggestion - start a new section in the Talk page of the article, explaining what the group hopes to accomplish. Keep in mind that a Wikipedia article about a disease is not about identifying support groups, etc. David notMD (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the advice. Just kind of tinkering at this point. I find your last comment interesting. I sense that many in the editor world feel this way. I am somewhat confused why listing resources for patients with a disease is not within the jurisdiction of an encyclopedia? I would imagine that a comprehensive encyclopedia would be quite thorough in describing not only the history, pathological process/mechanism, and treatment options but would also include things resources for those affected. In the same way that an article on cigarettes causing cancer would include a link to a smoking cessation program. In this case, there is a single 501c3 which represents the thousands of families affected by this disease (which I am not affiliated, just to clarify, although I am grateful for them. These types of conversations/details are things that are important and why I feel I need to find an experienced editor to help with this project. Maybe the talk section is a good place to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acdacd123456 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This question has arisen for many of the less common diseases. For example, at the end of the article Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), in the External links section, is this invisible caution that appears only when someone wants to add external links to an organization website: "PLEASE READ — If you intend to add links to non-profit organizations, charities, or web pages that you think may be of interest to people with ALS, please ensure you have thoroughly read and understand WP:EL, Wikipedia's policies on external links. Most links are *not* suitable for Wikipedia, even if they would be helpful to people with ALS." David notMD (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, this is a minor issue in my mind considering the overall page. That being said, I reviewed the guidelines and feel that allthingskabuki.com would fit the profile of an acceptable external link. If you have a moment, I would ask you to look at it and see what you think. The organization is important to many of the families around the country and world, mostly because it is the only organization dedicated to this disease. It is a 501c3 and has a lot of detailed information for families to share with providers etc. I am more involved in a separate online group, although all of the leaders of ATK are in the group I am referring to. I personally gain great benefit, networking, and information from our online group and it does make me sad to think that someone affected by kabuki wouldn’t know there is a large, great group of people out there who are very active, discussing a wide range of issues, etc. that being said, I realize Wikipedia isn’t Looking to be like “check out this support group” even though it would be helpful to the people affected. The ethics are actually interesting from an academic standpoint.

Anyways, I realize that our support group is not a perfect fit for Wikipedia, I do think ATK is a good option for a external link given it’s status as the only organization dedicated to KS and a 501c3. To be honest, people will find ATK anyways, but if the KS page is to be complete-it should include it.

Just pointing out- that’s the smallest part of the page that I would change/update and would love help making some more important updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acdacd123456 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Not on topic,but typing four ~ at the end of your comments will automatically add your User name. And using one or more ":" at the start of a comment indicates that it is a response to the previous comment. My recommendation is work on the article and set aside for the moment whether External links mention kabukisyndrome.com, allthingskabuki.org or neither. The article, especially the Lead, is too medical/scientific in tone. Approach it less as an MD and more for parents who have just had their child's diagnosis dropped in their lap. Perhaps look at Tay–Sachs disease as a model. David notMD (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Lolee Aries

I used to read Lolee Aries and edit Aries' page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slightlyoffkitkat1994 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia still has an article on Lolee Aries. Maproom (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it ok to take interest and join the conversation on someone else's talk page before the talkpage owner has responded ??

Yesterday I Posted an issue on an admin's talk page but before the admin some other editor responded on the admin's behalf.. And he said he is a proud "talk page stalker"... Can I also do the same? I Mean if i just browse through other users' talk page and jump in the discussions or queries/issues there, will it be considered a valid practice or bad behaviour?? thank you Adamstraw99 (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adamstraw99. You should be able to post comments on another editor's user talk page if you think they will be helpful and are relevant to whatever is being discussed, which is what most talk page watchers/stalkers do. Sometimes it might take some time for an editor to respond to posts added to their user talk page, so if you're confident that you can clarify things first, then it shouldn't be an issue. If, by chance, it turns out to be either because you posted something incorrect or because your input is not desired; just try to be more careful overall or refrain from doing such a thing with respect to that particular talk page in the future. I wouldn't, however, suggest making a habit of going around and looking for user talk pages where you can post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Create A new biography

How do you create a new biography in the Wikipedia of someone never affiliated with the Wikipedia before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone Fabb (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The subjects of Wikipedia article are in no way "affiliated" with Wikipedia. They, and their associates, should have no influence over the contents of the articles about them. Maproom (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Stone Fabb. I suggest that you read and study Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

New Profile page

Hi there I am trying to create a new profile page on Wikipedia on the British photographer, Carl Hyde. I am stuck as to how to do this.

I have created an account for myself on Wikipedia, but I am now stuck as to how to proceed.

can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erminia1 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Erminia1 and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you stuck on how to edit? If so, Help:Tutorial (click the link) will be of use. If it is about how to create an article/biography, then I would recommend checking out WP:Your first article as it contains useful information. Please note though that with biographies of living people, they do have higher standards for sourcing and notability. Any information in a BLP that is not referenced (from a reliable independent source) must be removed. Since it is your first article, I would also recommend submitting it via the Articles for Creation process so that an experienced reviewer can take a look at it and help out if it isn't up to par. I hope that this helps! If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
This tips page is also worth a read. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@Erminia1: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first inform you that Wikipedia does not have "profiles", but has articles about subjects shown to be notable in independent reliable sources. What that means is that Wikipedia is not for merely telling the world about someone, but to summarize what third parties state about article subjects.
I would also caution you that successfully creating a new Wikipedia article is probably the hardest thing to do here. It takes much time and practice. New users who are most successful started much smaller by making small edits to existing articles in areas that interest them(like correcting spelling) and then gradually moving up to more substantive edits and eventually article creation. This allows people to learn about how Wikipedia works and what is being looked for in articles.
However, if you still want to dive in to article creation, I would strongly recommend the following: first, you should use The Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial of sorts on using Wikipedia. You should then read Your First Article which summarizes what is being looked for and the process. Lastly, you should visit Articles for Creation where you can submit a draft for review by other editors before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way, you find out any issues before the article is formalized, rather than afterwards, when it will be treated more critically. If you have any other questions, feel free to add them to this section. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Erminia1 and welcome to the Teahouse. To be a viable article, the subject (Carl Hyde) will either have to pass what we call the General Notability Guideline (GNG) or the alternative criteria at WP:ARTIST. The GNG requires multiple and significant coverage about him in entirely independent reliable sources, i.e. magazines, newspapers, books, journal articles. This means either whole articles devoted to him or several paragraphs in a more general article or book. It does not include press releases, interviews with the subject, blog posts, or mere mentions in photo credits. WP:ARTIST requires major solo exhibitions, having his work held in the permanent collection of a major museum, or winning a major prize for his work (all verified by independent sources). If neither the GNG nor WP:ARTIST standards can be met, then the draft article will not be accepted or if created directly in article space, will be deleted. I suggest that you start by assembling the sources required, if they exist, in your sandbox. To create your personal sandbox, make sure you are logged in and then click the Sandbox link in the upper right-hand corner of any page. Make an edit to it and click Publish changes. Don't even try to create an article until you have collected multiple sources and are reasonably sure that they meet the criteria for reliability and verifiability. You need to all read the guidelines that I've given you very carefully in order to make that judgement. Or perhaps once you have collected them, come back to the Teahouse, post a link to your sandbox and ask an experienced editor to give you their opinion. Hope that heps, Voceditenore (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Question about finding help improving an article:

Hello Teahouse! I'm an editor who has been working primarily on improving the coverage of articles related to Hypericum on Wikipedia. My main project has been the article List of Hypericum Species, which I have sunk dozens of hours into adding info and formatting the list. However, I don't have nearly as much time now as when I started the project, and it is still a long way from being complete. I hate to just see the list go half-baked for the rest of its lifespan, so I've tried asking around to find help. I've looked through multiple mediums, including WikiProject Plants and others. I have gotten little to no response, but I still would like to find some other editors who would be willing to help pick up the project. I'm asking here to a) find out if there are any more places I can ask around to find help b) find help here or c) find ways to go about quickly finishing the list so it doesn't remain the way it is. I think the article has the information and promise to go on to become a Featured List, which was my goal when I started it. Thank you for reading and for any help or tips you can give. Sincerely, Fritzmann2002 14:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, it's List of Hypericum species. Case matters. Rojomoke (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Fritzmann2002, what kind of help are you looking for specifically? Formatting, or research, or what? I can do some formatting work. Research may require someone with more biological knowledge than i have. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
All the article requires is the filling in of each of the different categories: type, habitat, distribution, and synonyms. "Research" is an overstatement of what would have to be done to find that info, there are numerous sites that you just have to scroll through to find it. For example: Hypericum MySpecies, BioLib, Plants of the World Online and a bunch of others. The workload comes from scrolling through the websites and manually entering in that info to the relevant cell in the article. I've been chugging through it for the past year or so but I've run out of steam at this point. Fritzmann2002 18:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, wikilinking the countries, bullet points for the synonyms, references for each species, descriptions of the sections, and splitting sections into subsections is also to be done. Fritzmann2002 18:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
:: if it's a transfer of information into wikipedia that exists elsewhere, may be think seriously about just pointing to the other sites from wikipedia. If there is additional information not on those sites approach those sites to ask to add it, or ask in thier thier forums where people may have similar interests for help on wikipedia. Another good alternative may be to ask for a download from those sites (or learn to use a screen scraper). Good Luckd[@-@]b (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Archive my tal

Hi I am trying to archive my user talk page but I think I gone wrong I only want about 10(ish) discussion per achieve can someone help me do this P+TFanoflionking (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I fix this now let us now if. I need help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The instructions as to how to set up your archive configuration are at User:MiszaBot/config. It sounds as if you ought to have set maxarchivesize=10T if you wanted only 10 threads in each archive file, but you put the value 10 in 3 other parameters, which you have now changed to a value of 1. I see that you have been juggling all manner of things with your existing archives, including various garbled redirects, and I don't feel brave enough to try to sort that out for you. You may be better off reverting your user talk page to where it was before you started archiving, deleting all the confused archive pages, and starting again. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
You may want to read the advice again. You have asked for the size of each archive file to be limited to 10 bytes rather than 10 threads, and you've still got the tangle in the first few files because you didn't delete the previous garbled attempts. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Making first created page visible?

Hello All, I'm really hoping for some help. I recently created a page, I went to move it to (article) and put the name of the page I wanted next to it in the blank. it then leads me to what looks like the finished article, but when i copy and paste URL, itll open to not found. Any Suggestions? This is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Pumphrey,_Jr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtztay123 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kurtztay123, welcome to the Teahouse. Your article is at Don Pumphrey, Jr., with a period at the end. In the future, please sign any posts on discussion pages (such as this, and all Talk pages) with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. Rojomoke (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The article has apparently now been moved to Don Pumphrey, Jr (without the period at the end), but not clear why it has been moved, given the convention at WP:JR/SR. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

What WP:CSD criteria should I choose

Article 1 was merged with another article. Somehow article 1 was not deleted. What criteria for speedy deletion should I choose for article 1? Itsquietuptown (Talk • Contributions) 14:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Article 1 should probably not be deleted. It should be redirected to the article it was merged to. ~ GB fan 15:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
..., as advised at WP:MERGETEXT. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Two Citation/Reference Questions

Hi:

I just had an article published that needs attention with respect to two references. Would appreciate guidance on how to handle them. Here are my questions:

1. I need to add a citation/reference in the article that has already appeared beforehand. How do I do that without having it show up twice in the References section at the end?

2. Some of my citations/references are actually chapters in books that are assembled and edited by others ("Editors"). In the Templates you make available on your Editing page, there is no provision for that. Where can I turn for guidance on how to handle that?

Thanks!

Mwmcelroy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwmcelroy (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Mwmcelroy welcome to the Teahouse. Your first issue should be solved with "named references". See WP:REFNAME for detailed instructions.
For the second issue {{cite book}} has provisions for chapter information with the chapter= and chapter-url= parameters. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
the cite book documentation gives the following example:
Citing a chapter in a book with two joint authors and an editor
{{cite book |last1=Bloggs |first1=Joe |last2=Egg |first2=Fred |editor-last=Doe |editor-first=John |title=Big Book with Many Chapters and Two Co-authors |publisher=Book Publishers |date=January 1, 2001 |orig-year=1st pub. 1986 |pages=100–110 |chapter=Chapter 6: Getting There |chapterurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/ |isbn=978-1-234-56789-7 |lastauthoramp=y}}
Which gives -- Bloggs, Joe; Egg, Fred (January 1, 2001) [1st pub. 1986]. "Chapter 6: Getting There". In Doe, John (ed.). Big Book with Many Chapters and Two Co-authors. Book Publishers. pp. 100–110. ISBN 978-1-234-56789-7. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
I hope that is helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

How do I help an article become a Good Article?

I know that there is the WP:GA, but most b-articles that I come across already look pretty good. I want to do my part in helping, but I'll sometimes get overwhelmed by how much an article already has. Waterco4 (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Waterco4. Personally, I prefer to expand existing stubs, because you have more of a clean slate to work with, and I prefer writing content to checking someone else's already written content. Since about half the articles we have are stubs, there's no shortage of things to work on. GMGtalk 17:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Waterco4. You can always find additional reliable sources and add content based on them to fill gaps in the article coverage. you can also copyedit to fix grammar or improve wording. Look at the Wikipedia:Good article criteria and try to make sure that they are all met for a particular article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The actual process: You nominate an article after you have spent significant effort improving it. After a time (weeks to months) some other editor agrees to review the nomination. That person - and other editors (!) identify dozens to scores of things wrong with the article. Which will require additions to and deletions from the article. You reply to every request. This typically takes 7-10 days. At the end, the reviewer either approves or fails the nomination. You either pat yourself on the head (and, optionally, put a Good Article user box on your User page), or go sulk in the dark. When I started on Milk allergy it was C-class, 10,100 bytes, and 10 references. David notMD (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Mackinac College

I have been struggling to upload an upgraded version of Wikipedia's article "Mackinac College". I came to the Teahouse because of my most recent attempt (starting through WikiProject Michigan). Please let me know if you can help me. Here is the history of my efforts. I am a 71 yr-old research scientist (molecular microbiology) with three 30-something children and five college/university degrees (BA, BS, MA, MS, and PhD). I retired in 2011. Since then – in addition to many other activities – I started reading and using information in Wikipedia. The first college I had attended was Mackinac College and I was surprised at the disappointing content in the MC wiki (my other schools have GREAT wiki pages). So I started researching, writing, and learning how to organize and contribute information to improve the MC wiki. By 2014 I had extracted, written, and uploaded Mission Point (Mackinac Island) and Mackinac College (Humbard) with the help of jREF; the current MC wiki was created by another editor at that time.

Our upgraded Mackinac College wiki is now complete, and I was advised to begin the upload process by going through the Talk tab for Mackinac College. So on 7 March 2018 I uploaded into the Talk section (1) a critique of the current article and (2) our new Mackinac College article (Please have a look!). NO COMMENTS ensued, and no recommendations. So to find help I looked into WikiProject Michigan and and eventually ended up at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft. I didn’t know what else to do. Sure enough I had a reply: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Mackinac College instead. David.moreno72 00:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)"

I then asked David.moreno72 the correct way to proceed, and he said: "Hi Karin D. E. Everett. If the existing material is unreferenced, then yes, you can go ahead and remove the material. Make sure that you explain your changes in the edit summary. If you wish to incorporate your improvements, as per WP:V, they must be fully referenced. I would suggest a 'go slow' approach. Make incremental improvements so that it gives other editors time to review your changes to ensure they comply with policy. If there are no objections (via reverts) then keep making changes (all fully referenced of course). Happy editing. David.moreno72 02:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)"

So I changed three sentences in the existing Mackinac College wiki, providing 7 new primary references citing numerous specific pages and explaining the changes as simply as I could. The next morning my changes were gone and two boxes had been added to the Talk tab, accusing me of being personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article...conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

I do not know how to proceed. Please can you help me through this? The complete critique of the current article and our complete new Mackinac College article are still in Talk (my plan is to upload photos once the new article is "approved"). I can be much more specific regarding the errors in the current MC wiki, and I can provide full content for the references I've cited in the new MC wiki. Karin D. E. Everett (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Karin D. E. Everett -welcome to our Teahouse. Perhaps it's important to point out that we never replace one article with a completely new version. However, we are happy to see a poorly written and badly sourced article evolve over time into a far better one. I see David.moreno72 advised you to take it slowly when you add new, sourced content, and that is very sound advice indeed.
The conclusion that you may be connected to the subject is probably not an unreasonable one to make, bearing in mind your detailed work on this subject. Was that, in fact, the wrong conclusion to draw? From what you wrote above, it isn't. So, my advice would be to clearly state your connection - or lack of connection - and you can do this in two ways. First, why not simply add something about yourself on your Userpage, just as you've written above? You haven't created one yet, and this is always the first place I look if I'm unclear of the motives or background of an editor. Whilst not giving away personal details, you could explain a bit about yourself and your interests/motives in editing. Tell everyone if you're not connected to a topic, or how you are if you! Secondly, if you feel someone has posted a suggestion that you are connected when you're not, all you need do is simply go to their talk page and advise them of the facts. We all have interests in editing here, and sometimes it's because we have a close connection with a subject for one reason or another, or we might just be fascinated by that topic, having heard about it on TV, for example. These templates aren't their to impune you - just to help others assess whether one or more editors bring an accidental, or intentional, bias to a page. We call this a Conflict of Interest, and we do require everyone to declare it if you they might think they have one. And if you don't, why not help others understand that? I have a COI declaration on my own talk page - it's quite normal for us to do this. Because you are connected to this college, you might accidentally bring a bias to anything your write (despite your research scientist background), so it's OK for the template to remain in place, and it's OK for you to carry on editing the article - that way we all know who's doing what, and how they're involved. The template you saw on the article's Talk page was not directly accusing you of failing over a "conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view" - but were simply pointing to our key policies which are usually relevant in cases where this template is used. They're for everyone's information, and are well worth reading.
Another thing you asked his how to proceed when an editor reverts your additions. Firstly, I'd look carefully at what I added, and then what the reverting editor said in their explanation of their reversal. I'd consider whether they had a point, and if I did something wrong. If I don't think I did, I might contact that editor on their talk page and politely enquire why they reverted, and succinctly explain why I made that revision. John from Idegon who made that revert is quite experienced here, but also quite reasonable, and open to succinct discussion. So talking is the first step. It is important that editors remember this is a neutral encyclopaedia, and that sometimes 'less is more'. Adding overly-detailed information on a minor topic can be (or can be interpreted as) WP:POV-pushing. I must be honest and say that when I say your rejected 'alternative' article with a lot of overly detailed text and a huge list of books written by students who had gone to that college I did wonder myself whether you had misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia, as we don't want directory listings of non-notable works by non-notable people who attended a college. You might be aware of the acronym TLDR which might be relevant here. 'Too long - didn't read'. We urge everyone to try not to fall into that trap.
The existing college article is quite short and could undoubtedly merit expanding, providing it is all done in a neutral manner, with consensus if there's likely to be disagreement, and one step at a time. I hope this might give you a few pointers as to the way forward with some of your concerns, and that you can continue to bring your skills and knowledge to contribute productively and collaboratively. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Thank you so much for your response to my plea. I didn't know I had a Userpage, although a few days ago I did stumble into something with my name at the top. I've now seen a few Userpages for other people. I will definitely take your advice. Don't forget me. I may have to come back with a question or two as I get this all sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karin D. E. Everett (talk • contribs) 19:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Stuck in Draft mode

Everything I Publish is stuck as a Draft and I'm not sure how to actually submit them. Please help. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcw82890 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bcw82890: Answered at Draft talk:Brittany Chrishawn. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
PS @Bcw82890: You've only written one draft article so far, with only four edits to that draft. When you say "everything you publish is stuck in draft" do you mean you have published other drafts? Or that the entire single article you wrote is stuck in draft? Because I'm only seeing the single article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

On my Watchlist, why does it say 'Two requests for adminship are open for discussion'?

Hello. I just noticed a message at the top of my Watchlist, saying 'Two requests for adminship are open for discussion'. I haven't added the admin page to my watchlist, or even put a request in to be an admin, so what does it mean and why is it on my page? Thanks, AllyGebies talk 03:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AllyGebies. The top of our watchlists is used to communicate important information to active, experienced editors. Selection of new administrators is a very important process which is essential to the smooth functioning of the encyclopedia. You are invited to participate in that process, commonly called RFA. Just click the link. This is entirely optional, and if you are not interested, you can ignore the message. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so it's simply telling me something like 'Someone has put in a request to be an admin. Would you like to ask them questions to see if they should be an admin?' AllyGebies talk 03:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That's right. You could ignore the requests, you could read the pages and !vote for or against their adminship, you could even ask them questions. Maproom (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no need to ask questions, AllyGebies. I have participated in hundreds of RFAs and have rarely if ever asked a question. Instead, we want your informed opinion about whether or not these two editors should be promoted to administrators. As I said earlier, participation is entirely optional. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Just as a point of interest, AllyGebies - the two long-standing editors who the Wikipedia community are currently considering for the responsible position of being administrators are two of our regular Teahouse helpers and contributors here, namely: 331dot and Cordless Larry. Because these positions have access to very powerful tools to help run Wikipedia, including deleting pages, closing disputes and even blocking editors who don't act in good faith, we always seek the input from the broader editing community. It's akin to asking the students at a college for their opinions on who they feel would make the best and most trustworthy janitors to mop up the mess that some of the other students leave in their wake. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@AllyGebies: The watchlist message varies with time but not with the user. It comes from MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages which can be edited by administrators. It's by default displayed to all users who have the default language "en - English" at Special:Preferences. You can hide it by disabling "Display watchlist notices" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding fair use image

Hi. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so thank you in advance for your patience. I just published my first article, on Virginia Minnich, and I would like to add this photograph of her under fair use but I wanted to make sure it wouldn't be a copyright infringement. Here's the link to the image http://beckerimages.wustl.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15793coll3/id/2345/rec/21 and their policy: http://beckerimages.wustl.edu/cdm/rightsandpermissions.

Thanks! Biochemlife (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Biochemlife. Images used as fair use are generally not considered copyright violations because the doctrine of fair use (at least in the United States) allows the use of copyrighted content in limted ways without needing the permission of the copyright holder. One of these ways is non-for-profit educational use, which I'm pretty sure Wikipedia falls under, so it's unlikely the use of such a file would be considered a copyright violation. However, having said that, what matters with respect to Wikipedia is whether the particular use satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy (as explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE) has been purposely established to be more restirictive than "fair use" which means that even though a particular image may be considered "fair use" so to speak, the way the file is intended to be used on Wikipedia might still not be considered acceptable per Wikipedia policy. In this case, I would there's a good chance that the image you've linked to is OK because item #10 of WP:NFCI does allow non-free images of deceased individuals to be uploaded for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the individual in question. There is a caveat though in that you much be sure that the file's use satisfies non-free content use criterion #1 (see WP:FREER). Wikipedia prefers to use free content as much as possible and basically only permits non-free content to be used when there's no reasonable expectation that a free equivalent can neither be created nor found to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Since Minnich is deceased, nobody can take a new photo of her; the question then is whether there are any old photos of her floating around somewhere which are either within the public domain or which have been released (or can be released) under a free license compatible with Wikipedia's licensing policy. If there's a reasonable expectation that such an image exists, then non-free use may not deemed OK. The word "reasonable" is a bit subjective, but it generally means more than making just a tokin effort to find a free image. If you've made an effort to find a free equivalent (including possibly contacting some copyright holders) and haven't been able to find one, then a non-free is likely going to be considered to be OK; on the other hand, if you just want to upload the first image you found online, then that's probably not going to be OK. Moreover, it's important to remember that even though a non-free image of Minnich in a labcoat smiling might be a nice image, a free equivalent doesn't have to be same exact image; it only has to be sufficient for the encyclopedic purpose of identifcation. It's also improtant to remember that non-free use is not automatic and the default is not to use a non-free image until someone someday finds a free equivalent image to replace it. I've probably already gone into a little too much detail for a Teahouse answer, so you might want to try asking this at WP:MCQ or at WT:NFC since those pages specifically deals with image-related matters like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I did unsuccessful try to find free pictures, but I hadn't contacted the copyright holders of this one, so I just sent them an email. Biochemlife (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Biochemlife for making the extra effort. Not many editors seem to be willing to go that far. You might want to look at WP:ERP for some examples and suggestions regarding requesting permission of copyright holders by email. You might also want to consider asking at WP:RI/c:COM:RI in addition to WP:MCQ or WT:NFC. Some people have a real knack for finding free images online and they might be able to find one that acceptable. If after everything you still are unable to find one, then {{Non-free biog-pic}} and {{Non-free use rationale biog}} can be used for the copyright license and non-free use rationale if you want. You need to provide a copyright licnese and rationale to prevent the file from being speddily deleted per WP:F4 and WP:F6. Also, remember to provide a valid non-free use rationale for each use, which can sometimes be tricky since not all uses are equivalent and not every use may be deemed policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - they responded and said it was fine to use Biochemlife (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Biochemlife:. Seems like you might have misunderstood something in my original post. Non-free use does not require permission of the copyright holder; it might be nice to have, but it's not necessary. Permisssion of the original copyright holder is only necessary when you are requesting that they release their work under a free license. So, that's what I meant when I wrote including possibly contacting some copyright holders above. Some editors feel that a "reasonable" attempt to find a free equivalent means at least attempting to email a copyright holder or two to see if they would be willing to release their work under a free license. Contacting copyright holders is not a specific requirement per se, but some feel it is at least something which should be tried and often gets a favorable response in return. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
oh - sorry! Biochemlife (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I am making a draft for review and was wondering if it was legal to use images copied off the internet to add to my draft. Thanks in advance.TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

In most cases not, I'm afraid, TheRealWeatherMan. Most images on the Internet are copyright, and may not be used in Wikipedia, unless such use meets all the criteria of the non-free content criteria. Sometimes images are in the public domain (by reason of their age, or by explicit release by the copyright owner); sometimes images are released under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, (which allows anybody to reuse them for any purpose and in any way, including commercially, as long as they are properly attributed); in those cases, you may upload the image to Wikimedia Commons, and use it freely in Wikipedia. Please see image use policy. --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi TheRealWeatherMan. It's hard to provide a more specific answer than what ColinFine gave above without knowing more details about the actual images you want to use. Only images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia can be used on Wikipedia pages since the software will not display images which are just links to external websites; morevoer, whether an image can be uploaded and how it may subsequently be used basically depends upon the copyright status of the image. Although Commons and Wikipedia are sister projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, they do have some differences in policy when it comes to the types of images they accept. For more details about the type of images you can upload to Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files; for more details on what kinds of images Commons accepts, please refer to c:Commons:Licensing. Just for general reference purposes, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy doesn't permit non-free image to be used in drafts per non-free content use criteria #9 and Wikipedia:Drafts#Preparing drafts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Translating Wikipedia pages into English

How do I browse the German Wikipedia page (de.wikipedia) in English? Brunski13 (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

You could use translate.google.com but it is pretty rough. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
You can see the menus in English by using this link: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hauptseite?uselang=en – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Brunski13 I always use Google Chrome when viewing any foreign language pages because of Chrome's inbuilt 'Translate this Page' button. It is immensely useful, and works about 95% of the time. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Page public

How can my page be viewed to the public? Plz help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmlanMurmu06 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@AmlanMurmu06: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would say that your draft is a little ways from formally being part of the encyclopedia. Aside from the starter text needing to be removed, the draft does not have any independent reliable sources that indicate how this person is notable as Wikipedia defines it. See WP:RS and WP:CITE to learn more about sources. If you haven't already you should read Your First Article as well. Creating an article is actually one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia.
I would add that Wikipedia is not for merely telling the world about someone; Wikipedia is only interested in what third parties write about an article subject. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
When you are ready, you can use Articles for Creation to submit your draft for review, but I would not do so yet. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @AmlanMurmu06: - I agree with 331dot on all of the above. It is also worth noting that the subject of your draft is Amlan Murmu, and your username indicates that you either have a relationship, or are in fact yourself, Amlan Murmu. As such, you have a conflict of interest with the subject of your article. You should not use Wikipedia as a place to pen your autobiography, and should refrain from editing articles about your close friends or family to avoid introducing WP:BIAS. Aside from that, your draft also suffers from not establishing notability, and a dire lack of sources from reliable sources. Thus, you have a significant ways to go to get this article in mainspace. Hope this helps. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Moreover, We also do not write "pages" on Wikipedia, but rather articles about notable subjects. This is a common source of error for new editors, and appears to me to be a pitfall which you have fallen into. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_744&oldid=833373212"