Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 759

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

Archive 755

←

Archive 757

→

Problem uploading photo for my user page

Just getting started on Wikipedia. created a userpage and then tried to upload a photo of myself that I took myself and got an error. Error states: We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons. What am I doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimdunneg (talk • contribs) 17:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

(Note, I have moved this question to a new section as it was previously appended wrongly to another section). Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jimdunneg, welcome to the Teahouse, and welcome back to Wikipedia! I'm not sure why you got that message (unless some algorithm thought there was either too much flesh - or or too many books - in your picture!) Either way, it looks like you've now managed to upload your photo to your userpage. I've left a few helpful links for you, by way of welcome, and if we can be of any help, do feel free to come back and ask questions at any time. Things have certainly moved on a lot from the very early days of Wikipedia. Here's how it looked at the end of 2001. Now we have a host of help pages, lots of guidelines, and even one or two policies we expect folk to adhere to, and a range of ways to get assistance, too. But then, with 33 million users registered, 137,000 active editors this last month and 5.6 million+ articles now on English Wikipedia alone, a few guidelines are probably what we do need. Inevitably, newcomers (and returnees) can find these a bit hard to navigate through at first. So, any problems, just let us know and we'll try to help. Oh, and we now have around 2,000 'WikiProjects' which bring together editors to work on common interests, as well as 1,500 Portals which act as 'Topic Tasters' for people interested in simply getting a feel of a range of articles on a single broad topic. Hope you stick around - it looks like your skills could be very useful here. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jimdunneg: First of all, you were presumably trying to upload at Wikimedia Commons, not on Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons is a sister project with different procedures etc.

I suspect that you missed the "release rights" step at commons:Special:UploadWizard and mistakenly indicated that the photograph was taken by someone else. Can you tell us which exact steps you took? (Which licensing option you clicked, etc) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit to semi-protected pages

I am looking to add information to page that is semi-protected. I wanted to expand on a particular question. How can I make the edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompkeh (talk • contribs) 03:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have added a section heading before your question, as it did not appear to refer to the section in which you placed it. Users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page (with references to reliable sources to support the change), using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thompkeh, welcome to the Teahouse. If you cannot edit a page then the easiest way to start a request is by clicking the "View source" tab. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Profiles in different languages

Do I have to create a new user page in each language? If so, why?

I would also like to ask, is there a page for "titles" that can be added to profiles? Because I got most of mine from copying those of another user, and I think it would be cool if you could just look at a list of "most popular titles" and pick and choose from there/ be directed to a page with more if you click on one.

Thanks, & have a nice day Tolkien5 (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tolkien5: Yes, you need create a user page for each language Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia is separate, so even though your account will work on all of them, pages are not automatically created from one to the other. To explore all the userboxes that have been created so far, check our Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries RudolfRed (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, I will disagree with the first part of the response from RudolfRed above. No, you don't need to create a page separately for each language. Your meta user page at meta:Special:MyPage will be shown on any wiki where you don't have a local user page. See meta:Global user pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Neat. Thanks for the info! -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 04:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tolkien5: It's optional for editors with accounts to have a user page at the English Wikipedia. Each wiki makes its own rules but I guess it's optional in all or nearly all wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

how to add infobox

Hi Teahouse,

How do I add an infobox using Visual Editor? I only can see a limited number of templates available to use - none of which relate to the page I'm creating. When I add information to the normal 'infobox' it doesn't actually appear on the page.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks, FoxyBrown9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxyBrown9 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse FoxyBrown9! In the Visual Editor, you can start an opening {{, and it should bring up a menu where you can search for templates, of which infoboxes are included. Also, when you say that it doesn't appear on the page, perhaps you forgot to publish the edit, as your message here at the Teahouse is currently your only edit. Thanks, _{Vermont | reply here} 10:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what is wrong with my article: Duplexer notes for the 2m Amateur band

All the material presented is verifiable if you sit down with a soldering iron, the test gear and a cavity as pictured.

I'm trying to explore and compare different techniques.

Is it a title problem? Should it be: Duplexer notes on VHF when the frequency spacing is small

The article is in my Sandbox.

AlanVK2ZIW (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi AlanVK2ZIW and welcome to the Teahouse. The article reads like a "how to" manual, and contains what looks like your original research. Neither of these is appropriate for an encyclopaedia. You might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners Dbfirs 12:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey AlanVK2ZIW. It looks like you've put a lot of work into this, but unfortunately, as pointed out above, you're taking a bit of a wrong approach. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's goal is to provide a broad encyclopedic overview of a subject, rather than an in-depth step-by-step guide. So for example, we would say something like:

A hammer is a tool or device that delivers a blow (a sudden impact) to an object. Most hammers are hand tools used to drive nails, fit parts, forge metal, and break apart objects. Hammers vary in shape, size, and structure depending on their purposes.

However, we would not say something like:

In order to use a hammer, first grip the handle with your dominate hand. For more delicate work, it's best to grip closer to the head of the hammer, but for more force with less accuracy, you should grip toward the base instead.

Having said that, since you appear to be knowledgeable about the subject, it does look like we have existing articles for both Repeater and Radio repeater, and both of them look to contain a heckuva lot of unsourced information. So probably a good place to start would be using your familiarity with the subject to try to find sources that meet our standards for reliability and add references to the existing articles, rather than trying to make a new one. GMG ^talk 12:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@AlanVK2ZIW:, as someone who spent a lot of their teenage years transmitting on the 2 metre ham radio frequencies in the London area, even building my own 5-valve superheterodyne receiver in the mid-1970s to get me onto the HF bands as an SWL, but never quite managing to get my CW up to scratch for a class A transmitting licence, I just thought I would chip in here. I'm afraid GreenMeansGo is absolutely right to say that you've unfortunately picked up the wrong end of the stick about Wikipedia. It is an encyclopaedia, in which we only collate factual information already available in reliable sources, published or written about in depth, supported by references to allow others to confirm what is said is correct. It's really not a radio shack compendium of RF knowledge, loosely assembled, no matter how much your photos personally inspire me to dig out a few of my old bits of kit, power up a still-treasured QQV0640 valve, or set off up a hill with my old TR2200G 2m transceiver. Now, I could possibly pull out my old RSGB Amateur Radio Manual and use it as a source to support a few notable concepts related specifically to amateur radio, or to radio communications in general, like Duplex (telecommunications). But I really wouldn't be allowed to create a page as you have done here, no matter how well-meaning it was. I'm sorry about that. I really advise you to consider putting that content on a free website like Google blogger. That's the best way to ensure your skills and knowledge don't get lost, and are readily available. Or, as already suggested, carefully contributing to poorly-cited articles about other RF-related topics which already exist. If it has't already been reapplied, I do feel I must put a 'deletion' notice back on, as I see you've since copied it from your sandbox into mainspace here. That's not to say we don't welcome your contributions - just that this one is way off the mark and style of what we can accept. May I suggest you might wish to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Amateur radio which is one of 2,000 projects bringing editors together who have close interests at heart. Welcome again, and 73s from my QTH here in the Midlands of England. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this the sort of article that Wikiversity would accept? It seems a pity not to publish it somewhere. Dbfirs 15:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Help creating a biography in wikipedia

Hey TeaHouse. I've been trying for the last month to create a biography of a famous portuguese painter Adelino Ângelo Leite de Faria de Lemos Magalhães and the moderators of wikipedia only know how to disable or erase my pages , i've asked many times for them to help me & explain to me what am i doing wrong. Can i leave a draft of what im doing here ? So if anybody can give me a hand ? One problem the draft is in portuguese :/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mestre_Adelino_%C3%82ngelo — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiogoChe12 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi DiogoChe12 and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean Draft:Mestre Adelino Ângelo, then there's not much point in trying to create an English Language article written entirely in Portugese. Are you wanting someone to translate it into English for you? The second problem is that there isn't a single reference. See WP:Referencing for beginners. Dbfirs 10:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, im trying to create a portuguese article but i couldnt find a portuguese "teahouse" like yours, so i could have some support cause im realizing that is not that easy to creat/write a wikipedia article. So my main concern should be having relying references ? could it be books ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiogoChe12 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't read Portuguese, so I'm not sure which Cafe is most appripriate on the Portuguese Wikipedia, but you could try this question page, or follow the links from there. You also need to copy your draft to the Portuguese Wikipedia. Books published by established publishers would make good references. You really need to get your support from the Portuguese Wikipedia because their rules might be slightly different from ours. I can see your addition of a file to Commons, but I cannot find any contributions from you on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Have all your contributions been erased, or do you have a different user name there? Dbfirs 11:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that you have added an English date of birth to the draft in Portuguese. There doesn't seem much point in this unless you are planning to translate the draft into English. Dbfirs 16:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Specific Talk Page

If I see a page that needs loads of edits, but I'm not sure how to edit them, if I leave a comment on that specific pages 'talk page' will someone be notified about my comment, or will it be there for years unseen?

An example is 'The Worst Witch' book series which has increased from 7 books to 8 books, with 2 spin-off books in the last 5 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worst_Witch

So I've left a comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Worst_Witch

--Danstarr69 (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Danstarr69. You can add the text {{Help me}} to your comment on the talk page, and it will be added to a queue of editors who have requested help and need assistance. GMG ^talk 14:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Danstarr69: That is very good advice from GreenMeansGo, because some pages are monitored by very few people at all. However, my kids used to love the The Worst Witch and TV programme so I expected quite a few people might be interested in it. People who 'watch' pages receive automated notifications whenever a change is made to the article or to its talk page. So how to find out how many? Well, simply click the 'View History' tab for that article, and then, a couple of lines down from the main title, you'll see a line beginning "External Tools". Go along that line and click 'Number of Watchers" and you'll see it currently has 39 people monitoring it. (I might have guessed higher, actually), so in this instance I'm sure someone might well have seen your comment. But GMG's suggestion ensures someone responds to you on that page very quickly - and I see you've now done that - so they may help if you aren't sure how to do it yourself. We do have a saying here: 'Be Bold' but sometimes if a person changes a 'fact' without supporting it with evidence, someone else may well pop by and revert it as unsupported. In this instance you appear to have provided the evidence, too, so thank you for your contribution. Next time, why not give it a go yourself - it's a great way to gradually learn how to do stuff. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

page in sandbox rejected

Hi all ,

my page was rejected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ismaine_ayouaz but does not look different than the two following pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Collins-Muhammad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Cohn

do I need to have someone that is not me to draft is and publish it ? what ca I do about it. if those pages are valid, why mine which is similar is rejected ?

in advance thanks !

Ismaine ayouaz The decline notice says "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." Is there anything about the explanation that follows immediately after that is unclear? Have you followed the links to Wikipedia:SECONDARY, Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources, Wikipedia:BIO, Wikipedia:VRS, Wikipedia:Common_sourcing_mistakes_(notability) Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners, Help:Introduction_to_referencing/1 Wikipedia:V Wikipedia:N in that note? I know, it's a lot to read. Probably too much, so you might want to start with WP:POLITICIAN and WP:AUTOBIO. Vexations (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Vexations I got it.. thanks !

wikipedia deleting page

Hi I need help. I tried to create a page regarding a virtual sim. I explained the history with references and what it does?

Can someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony elliot (talk • contribs) 19:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I have replied on your talk page, and moved the article to a draft. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or ask here. Happy editing! _{Vermont | reply here} 20:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

user making numerous dubious edits

I notice a lot of dubious edits made by one particular user... see Special:Contributions/101.178.163.208.

I was particularly noticing a change to Human rights in the United Arab Emirates regarding the legality of publicly kissing, which appears to be blatantly inaccurate, and which lacks a supporting reference, but I also noticed that a large percentage of the changes from this user have been reverted.

What is the proper way to request an administrator to further investigate and restrict the user, assuming that is deemed to be appropriate? Fabrickator (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The edits from this IP seem to be more about disagreements between them and other editors than blatant vandalism. In cases like this, it's best to try and discuss with them on their talk page or the article's talk page. (Remember WP:CIVIL) If that does not work, and disruptive edits continue, you could consider bringing it up on WP:ANI, which is where administrators will notice and respond to the issue. _{Vermont | reply here} 21:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Nirbhaya case delhi 2012

Why in the whole artical written on nirbhaya rape and murder case there is no information about the name of juvenile accused are you guys running some propeganda against a perticular religion if not then why you are not putting his(juvenile) name in the artical on the other hand you have used other acccused names at several places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.114.169.190 (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello anon. If you would like to suggest changes to the article, you can do so on the article talk page. But if you start off the discussion with accusations of prejudice and propaganda, you're probably not going to get very far. Editors are expected to treat others with civility while working to improve the encyclopedia. GMG ^talk 14:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Like he says. Wikipedia has many thousands of active editors, with widely disparate views. If you accuse all of us of being involved in a conspiracy, you're making a lot of enemies, and that isn't going to help your cause. Maproom (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

oclc

Hi there,

I'm a new editor, and I'm updating the page of Leandro Soto Ortiz, at his request. In 'Works or Publications', I want to enter a new item, but I see 'oclc', and every other entry has a different number, but I don't know what they mean. Can anyone help me with this? Lauraj210 (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Lauraj210 and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Did you not try clicking the hyperlinks to find out for yourself? Whilst I'm not familiar with this cataloguing system either, it soon becomes pretty clear this is the OCLC cataloguing system (WorldCat's Online Computer Library Center), and the hyperlinked number is the unique identifier for the work on that system (rather like an ISBN number we're all much more familiar with. The article has used a special template {{citation}} which allows you to enter those parameters. I presume you would look up the relevant work on the catalogue to retrieve its identifier. Once in the article, a user need only click the link to see the entry and which library holds copies. It would make sense to follow that system. But I don't think we want full lists of his publications -just a selection of the most significant ones. So please don't add more trivia.

As a new user, thank you for declaring on your user page that you have a conflict of interest with the subject. Are you being paid to do this promotional work? If so, you must also declare this, as per our policy which you must follow here: WP:PAID. The article is very poorly referenced and serves only to promote the artist based mostly on his own website. We do not need to have a directory of all his works, nor everyone involved. Nor do we need you to tell us to go to his website three or four times to find out more. Please remove those links - they do not conform with our Manual of Style. We need you to provide references independent of the subject which tell us what others have said about him. If you cannot do this, please delete the unsupported content, leaving just one 'External link' to his website or LinkedIn account, or whatever he uses. Wikipedia is only interested in people who others have talked about in depth. So, please, remove all the cruft (trivia), and go and get some better references - I think there are quite a lot out there - please try Google News or Google Books for starters. I am not confident that a library meta-data entry for a collection of papers is a good enough source on its own to support all the biographical information, though others might disagree with me. I would prefer to see this section additionally referenced from properly published sources. Work in major museums should be reference to those museums or news articles, not to the artist's own website. Then we can be confident he meets our notability criteria for artists. Sorry to sound a bit grumpy over this - but we need a good reliable encyclopaedia entry, not list upon list of what he's done from a website we could simply visit ourselves. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Nick Moyes First of all, I'm not being paid; Leandro doesn't know how to edit a Wikipedia page, and I thought I'd give it a go just to help him out. I'm not contributing any of my opinions, and just fleshing out the page according to his resume. I read the COI, but I assume that's okay, as it would be an ordeal to ask another editor to do so many updates. Please advise.

I'm in the process of refining his page, and adding references. You can see that by going to the page -- I hope this suits Wikipedia better. I've taken out the references to Leandro's website, but mostly have been working on the introduction and the bio so far, the Publications, and I put links to most of the 'Selected Permanent Collections'.

All the other external links were put in by another editor -- should I remove them, as they are repititions of the University of Miami item which is referenced in Reference #1? (The only one that really ought to remain is "Creator page for Leandro Soto Ortiz in the Cuban Theater Digital Archive", which is not part of UofM.) Yes, I did look up the OCLC after writing a Teahouse request but before you answered, but nowhere did I find how to get the identifier. Since you're not familiar with the OCLC system, shall I write another Teahouse request on that particular issue, or can you figure it out? Cheers from the US Lauraj210 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Lauraj210. Sorry for the delay in replying. Thanks for clarifying your unpaid relationship to him. It struck me that you might be in the best position to take a photo of him and upload it for use on this article (we can only accept images where the copyright is owned by the person uploading it as they have to release it under a Creative Commons licence before we can utilise it. I don't think you need to worry about not having an OCLC number, especially if you've got an ISBN number. But if you do want it, I found it halfway down the entry on the OCLC website for one of those publications already listed in that section. I guess if you can't actually find the publication listed on their site, you'll never be able to generate that entry number for obvious reasons. Yes, it's fine to be bold and to remove duplicate references, though if the same reference supports different statements of fact in different places, it is highly desirable to keep them all there. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:Nick Moyes I'm now down to the appendices, and I'm lost in a miasma of links upon links upon links. I'm cross-eyed from reading!

I changed the title 'References' back to 'Notes and References'. Somehow along the way, I lost all but #1 in edit, but they are still there in the public. Wierd! Can you help me with that? (Can you go into the edit page?) I couldn't find reference to including one of the 'Publications' section items as a footnote. I tried, but I can't get into the edit section to add the editor... Do you have any suggestions as to the Manual of Style on this issue? You said to include "references independent of the subject which tell us what others have said about him". I've included a 'Further reading' section which, admittedly I think, has too many! I read that only 3% of the articles have that section... I'm not done, but would you check on the progress so far and make any suggestions/corrections? I'm going to have Leandro send an email to somebody who has taken a recent picture to see if he'll give permission to use it. Better than anything I could take... Lauraj210 (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Using sources

Can sources from the office of historic resources of a city's website be used if other sources are difficult to find? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Rivera Jr (talk • contribs) 02:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, David Rivera Jr. Use of such supplemental sources is acceptable if (and only if) there are reliable, independent sources in the article that establish that the topic is notable. In other words, the city's website does not establish notability of something that the city itself designates as "historic". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Android Wikipedia has a summary line not shown via browser - how to edit it?

Hi!

I was looking on my smartphone using the Wikipedia app at "Martin McDonagh". Following his name, it shows the following in italics - "Irish Turkish film director and playwright". Believing this to be wrong and not finding any reference to it in the rest of the entry, I went to Wikipedia via my computer using Firefox to edit it - but found this summary line does not exist.

How can I submit an edit for this line? I have also written under "Talk" in the entry waiting for a response.

BESTEST Life-Is-An-Adventure (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Life-Is-An-Adventure The string "Irish Turkish film director and playwright" comes from the wikidata item: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q372394 It's likely vandalism, introduced in this edit Vexations (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have fixed the Wikidata entry now, thank you for pointing this out. If you want to correct such erroneous information yourself, you can usually access the Wikidata page via the "Wikidata item" link in the toolbar on the article page. GermanJoe (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Soon we will be changing over to Wikipedia:Short descriptions. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both! Wikipedia is IMHO one of the most beneficial features of the web (no comment on the worst), which I use frequently during the day both for information and serendipitous searching (which is how I came across this problem). Those like you who support it deserve much gratitude. I am proud to be a small donor and very infrequent editor.

BESTEST Life-Is-An-Adventure (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Михаил Самойлович Хазановский

Hello,

in March 2018 I created an article about Michael Samoilovich Khazanovsky in Russian (Михаил Самойлович Хазановский). He was one of the founders of this music boarding school for talented youth in Kharkov, Ukrain - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0-%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82 I created this article in the Sandbox under my account. Now I`m trying to find out what happened to it and I can`t find it anywhere. Can someone please help.

Also, I checked the deletion log and all public logs and don`t see it. I would really like to have it retrieved as I didn`t save the latest version of it anywhere else.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Elena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Елена Хазановская (talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Just to check, did you save it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnbeatableFlame154 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I`m pretty sure I did. It was there when I created it and then a few days after I checked it to find out the status and it was still there. Now I don`t see it. I created it around March 16, 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Елена Хазановская (talk • contribs) 03:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Your contributions to the Russian Wikipedia are shown at ru:Служебная:Вклад/Елена_Хазановская. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

w:ru:Инкубатор:Хазановский, Михаил Самойлович must be it. Seems like there are some issues with that article, maybe you should first create it on a user page like w:ru:Участник:Елена Хазановская/Инкубатор:Хазановский, Михаил Самойлович or indeed in your sandbox. Alexis Jazz (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I pasted my article to my Sandbox. Will it not be deleted from there? I realized I need to make some more edits. So I`ll submit for review once I`m done. Also I want to add Michael`s portrait, and it`s probably just a matter of attaching the file. And I also am not sure how to format the table that is usually placed in the top right hand corner with the summary of the main dates and names. I don`t remember how I created it initially, and now in the Sandbox I don`t see that option. It just appears as simple text, not as a table. Thank you to all who responded!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Елена Хазановская (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are drafting an article in Russian, you ought to use your account at the Russian Wikipedia, not the English one. You can create user subpages & user sandboxes there, see ru:Википедия:Личная_страница_участника#Подстраницы_участника. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Елена Хазановская (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

And to answer your question about "the table that is usually placed in the top right hand corner with the summary of the main dates and names", if you look at your draft at ru:Инкубатор:Хазановский, Михаил Самойлович you'll see that it uses the template ru:Шаблон:Персона, the Russian equivalent of Template:Infobox person. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Елена Хазановская: *whistles* To attach a picture, you need to upload one. If there is a picture that is free of copyright available, you can upload it to Commons. Read Commons licensing first though. (also available in Russian) If you don't have a free picture, you will have to check if ruwiki allows uploading your picture locally. Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone help me fix the italics on my userpage?

I tried to put my interests in italics on my userpage but somehow messed it up. How do I fixed it? -Acquiescence2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acquiescence2 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, Acquiescence2. Try to MOS:ITALIC each separate word, that should work (there may be some different way). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I italicized the words on the user page for you. Is that what you needed help with? MarkZusab (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

"Citation needed"

Hello. Can I, as a new editor (7 days old) remove a "Citation needed" tag after I have provided the appropriate citation? If so, can you advise me how I do it - simply editing the tag doesn't seem to work? Allan Mungall (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Allan Mungall. Welcome to the Wikipedia and the Teahouse. Yes, you can remove the tag if you judge that it is no longer appropriate. You need to remove the {{cn}} from the end of the reference - it is still there in Tay Road Bridge. --ColinFine (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine. Now removed. Allan Mungall (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Help Please

Need some assistance our article of a Former member of parliament and an Ambassador was declined.

If we share the biography would you be able to check with its up to standard.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AishaK73 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Aishak73 - Your draft has no references. That is why it was declined. The decline template says that it didn't establish biographical notability. That doesn't mean that he isn't notable, but the draft doesn't have reliable sources confirming that he served as an ambassador and as a member of a parliament. As a former member of a parliament, he satisfies political notability, but only with a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ling Chun and Artist Notability

I moved a sandbox to Draft:Ling Chun and commented (for another reviewer) that notability for artists is usually determined based on their permanent collections. That is, I didn’t accept or decline the draft. The author, User:Jennanenah, then said that she had developed the page as a class project, and that her professor had said that notability is based on five or more publications about her work. I didn’t know that. Can other experienced editors please look at Draft:Ling Chun? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Jennanenah, as per WP:NARTIST and WP:NBIO, notability for an artist is based primarily on coverage of the artist in reliable published secondary sources. This can include being widely cited by peers or successors or having created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that has been the subject of secondary coverage, or based on critical reviews of the work, or in other forms.. A permanent collection, particularly if sponsored by an independent entity such as a major museum, may be evidence of notability, but is in no way required. An artist with no permanent collection, but who has been extensively covered by secondary sources, may be quite notable. There is no rule specific "five sources". Three or sometimes even two high-quality sources with in-depth discussions of a subject may suffice to establish notability.

I see extensive and specific sources listed in the "Further reading" section of the draft, several of them with no online l;inks shown. Perhaps some of these might be converted into source citations by an editor with access to them? That might be enough for the draft to be approved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jennanenah: If this is referring to this diff, the professor is probably correct if they meant to say that 5 references to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is likely sufficient to establish notability. The General notability guideline says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". A very quick review of all the online sources listed in the references section doesn't show that we have any sources that are independent and sufficiently in-depth, but I'll have another look. I'm not quite sure that I understand the urgency of a review. If "getting reviewed" in a timely manner is part of an assignment, someone should have a word with the prof. We're volunteers and our review queues at AfC and NPP have a backlog of several weeks. Vexations (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User:MUMACHA2203/sandbox on Kopparapu Duo Poets

I reviewed User:MUMACHA2203/sandbox and declined it. It wasn’t clear to me what the title of the article was meant to be. It appeared to be about two people. I said that the article needed a proper lede sentence introducing the topic. The author User:MUMACHA2203 asked me on my talk page to take another look, and said (I think) that in the Telegu poetic tradition, pairs of poets sometimes work extemporaneously. In further looking at the draft, I see that a possible title, Kopparapu Duo Poets, is hidden in small text at the top of the article. I would appreciate the comments of other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's about two poets who were brothers (or maybe a sister and a brother), and performed together. It refers to another such pair, Tirupati Venkata Kavulu. But it shouldn't be the duty of a reviewer to figure out what an article is about. The creator of the article should explain it clearly in the first paragraph. Maproom (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Another Q

Can u cite another wiki article in an article?

No. Wikipedia does not regard itself as a reliable source. (If it did, people could write whatever falsehood they liked in two articles, each citing the other.) Maproom (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

How do I add pictures?

I made some pictures and I want to put them in some articles. Can someone tell me how to do it? Thanks -Ethan — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrexEthan (talk • contribs) 04:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi TrexEthan. While Wikipedia's appreciates your desire to contribute and your enthusiasm, I'm not sure you quite yet understand what Wikipedia is about. If these are the pictures you'd like add to articles, then I'm not sure you should try. Wikipedia articles are not really places for editors to add their own personal artwork (no matter how good they might be) unless there's a pretty good encyclopedic reason for doing so. While you might be quite good at drawing dinosaurs, I'd image that many of these articles already have enough images already added in support of the subject matter. Moreover, Wikipedia's content licensing requirements are quite strict and most user-created content such a images and photographs needs to be release under a copyright license which will allow anyone anywhere in the world to use for any purpose, including to make as much money as they can off of; so, basically you would have no real control over how other's use your work and they would not need your permission to do so. I'm not trying to discourage you, but you might be better off posting such things on your own personal website or social media accounts instead where you have a little more control. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A different approach to your question - Which articles? Do you truly believe that the photos you have taken will improve those articles? Have you searched Commons to see if existing photos would be even better? Do you understand that if you add your photos to Commons, you give up all future rights? (There are instances of photo submiters having second thoughts and being told "too late for that!") David notMD (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Note also that illustrations of extinct animals are expected to reflect the best and most recent scientific information available: overly imaginative reconstructions, or those based on older works, are unlikely to be acceptable. I recommend that you get some feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review before adding an image to an article.—Odysseus 1479 18:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

hello

Hello, I am sorry if I hve some stupid qustions but i am new to wikipedia. How do you prove in a draft that my infrmation is reliable, because in my last draft the reviewers tld me that i need to prove the credibility of my info. My Draft is Draft:Mina Sundwall Thx, WikiPro04

Hi WikiPro04 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has some external links, but no in-line references. You might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners. You prove that your information is reliable by citing WP:Reliable sources for each fact. Dbfirs 16:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thx rrly mch feel already welcome

WikiPro04, it also seems to me you currently have a problem with WP:NOTABILITY. There's no doubt Sundwall is in Lost in Space (2018 TV series), [1] or Variety is a good source for that. But for a WP-article on her to "stick", you need reliable sources that significantly talk about her, not just mention her. More at WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. If those sources don't exist (yet), there can't be an article. Imdb is fine as external link, but very little else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thx im working on it right now, so bassicaly im supposed to cite by imdb that mina acts in lost in space right?

WikiPro04 No. Keep Imdb in External links but cite better things like Variety and Daily Herald. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång OK could you please check it tonight or tommorow so i can know if its ready for submission? (tonight so i have the time to edited it. Thx

I can take a look, sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

can you please write for me about raheja hospial

hii can you please write for me about raheja hospial — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulkashi30041995 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rahulkashi30041995, and welcome to the Teahouse. Everyone here is a volunteer, and we write about what intrests us or what we choose to. It might be that someone would be willing to help you with such an article, but it is less likely that anyone would just write one for you. In any case, any article would need to be based ion citations to reliable sources. You would need to provide such sources for anyone to start work on such an article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

here is some advice that might be helpfui, Rahulkashi30041995

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of organizations. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Userboxes

Userboxes are confusing me and the existing tutorial is not very helpful. Is there a way to make this easier on me and other new Wikipedians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. 478C2 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello there. Are you talking about the userbox maker or userboxes in general? Thegooduser Let's Chat 20:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

No, userboxes in general, I'm afraid. I can understand the maker.Mr. 478C2 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried reading This page yet? Thegooduser Let's Chat 20:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

how replace footnote section with references section

I am revising an article that has both footnotes and references. I would like to just use references, but my new notes go into existing footnotes, and I appear unable to just rename footnotes section as references. Thank you.TBR-qed (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@TBR-qed: can you link us to the specific article you're working on? And by "references" vice footnotes, do you mean in-line references like "Apples can be red (Smith, page 85)" or do you mean just listing Smith at the end of the page with no clear ties between Smith and the apples sentence? You are correct that referencing should be consistent throughout the page, and while some academic genres prefer inline referencing in the texts, Wikipedia generally tends to favor footnotes, but in either case a reference that is explicitly tied to the facts it supports is better than just listing generic references for the whole page at the bottom. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Please also keep in mind WP:CITEVAR. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

TBR-qed, the article natural kind had been using "General references", a list of source citations that are not related to specific statements in the article. More recent edits, including yours, have been using footnotes generated by <ref>...</ref> tags, a form of inline citation. See WP:CITE for various citation formats in use in Wikipedia. Inline citations have certain advantages, but general references can also be used. I have placed the two in subsections of an overall References section. Editors can come to a consensus on the article talk page as to what format or formats to use, see WP:CITEVAR. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Another question

I’m back and I do have a question. I would like to add David Meade’s April 23rd prediction to Portal:Current events/2018 April 23. Which statement can I use when I add it to the page, once it’s created by a bot? —LovelyGirl7 talk 05:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LovelyGirl7. Why would we add a prediction from a discredited religious crank to such a page? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it's the end of the world.. again. If the apocalypse indeed comes in 2 days you can add that statement in absolutely any way you'd like. Even all caps! If it doesn't, it would seem quite irrelevant don't you think? Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events might be the place, if you have a good source for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

According to this [2], Meade says Monday will be ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

David Mead is already listed for 2017 Sep 23 – Oct 25 in List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events. David Meade (author) says: "Meade announced that the apocalypse would begin in March 2018, but he didn't predict the exact date. After March 2018 passed, he moved the apocalypse to April 23, 2018". [3] says he predicts "between May and December of this year". He shouldn't get a new mention in List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events for every new date he sets. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm busy Monday...any chance he could predict it again for a little bit later on? Total galactic annihilation - maybe just after Thursday teatime - would be absolutely fine with me. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I will once April 23rd becomes a normal day. Meade is a fraud. Harold Camping's 2011 predictions were on Portal:Current events, Meade can be as well. I would say something on the Current events page like "According to numerous reports, David Meade predicted that the world would end on this day. However, he denied the world would end and called it fake news". @PrimeHunter: After 2018 ends maybe he can be added to the list again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LovelyGirl7 (talk • contribs)

Ah yes, Rampling... It was in Doonesury. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: No no no, you didn't understand! You can add the date if the apocalypse actually happens next monday. If it doesn't it would just be spam. Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: it’s unlikely it will. Campings 2011 predictions didn’t happen but they were on “current events” page. —LovelyGirl7 talk 19:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: Exactly my point. I predict the apocalypse will happen at exactly 19:01 on 5 November 2024. Alexis Jazz (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I predict it will be a normal day. --LovelyGirl7 talk 20:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I think you missed I am permanently moving the goalposts with my prediction. But anyway, I don't see why you should add predictions from whackjobs to a current events page. You could put a message there every single day saying X predicted the apocalypse for that day. If they enter into some sort of mass suicide pact it'll be an event, but let's hope that doesn't happen. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

List of "in process" articles?

Hi. I'm new here and mostly intend to help with copy editing and proofing, but I also may want to develop a few new pages. Once I'm certain a particular topic isn't already covered by a Wikipedia article, is there a way to find out if someone is working on one but hasn't published it yet? i.e., a list of "in process" articles or some such? Just curious, as I don't want to step on toes or waste time. Ashram molter (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Ashram molter. Good question, Wikipedia:Drafts#Finding_drafts is the best I can think of right now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks {{|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}}! That page is very helpful, actually -- esp. the instructions for how to search for a "draft." Appreciate it! Ashram molter (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ashram molter: There are a couple of other tricks you could deploy to find if another editor had been working on a given topic. Rememebr that editors also work in the sandboxes, so, as well as including 'Drafts'in the Search, you could also include 'User' namespace. For example, I've had a partly completed article on the Gouter Hut - a high altitude mountain refuge beneath Mont Blanc in my own sandbox for some time, and hope to finish it soon. You wouldn't find it just by including 'Drafts', but you do if you repeat the Search with 'User' (and deselect 'Main'. You could also include unusual keywords likely to be present, too, and not just the title. So, search on 'Maurice Herzog' and you once again find my personal draft.

A second trick could be to look for unusual images on commons which you might yourself wish to put into an article were you to write it. Click each image and by scrolling down you can see a list of pages which that images has been placed in, whether in mainspace or elsewhere, as well as non english wiikipedias. Check out this image or this one which I've already embedded in my sandbox article. Obviously this won't work if an image hasn't yet been deployed, or where there are innumerable similar ones like it which might have been used instead. Either way, it would be really bad form to take and publish an article using content that another editor has put into a sandbox draft (though it's happened to me in the past). But checking to see if you're wasting your time by repeating something, or contacting an editor to offer to work with them are two sensible routes to take. I hope you find this extra tip of some help, too. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

That's all super helpful -- thanks, Nick. Ashram molter (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Etiquette for making large changes to existing stub?

I'm very very new but I've found an interesting stub that hasn't had work aside from minor spelling corrections done on it in years. I'd like to know what the etiquette is for doing a lot of work on an existing article (essentially re-writing the entire thing). I made some edits yesterday but I've read a bit more of the wikipedia instructions and the previous questions in here and I suspect that it's not polite to have the live version as an in-progress draft, even if it IS readable and of about the same quality as the original stub. Should I be doing the edits in my sandbox and then copying them over once I'm done? Something involving drafts? If I am making edits in a separate copy, should I make a note or add a link somewhere on the talk page of the article that I'm doing so? Should I revert the edits I made yesterday and let it stay as it was while I fiddle with my separate version? Auricolour (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Auricolour. I assume that you are talking about Stadial. You should not think about expanding an existing article as a "separate version" but rather as a gradual improvement. You can write new content directly into the existing article, or you can draft new content in a sandbox page and then copy and paste it into the article when it is complete. My personal practice is to add one or two sentence expansions directly to the article. I will draft paragraph length or multi-paragraph expansions in a sandbox, proofread them carefully, and then transfer the content to the article.

A few thoughts about the article: You should be summarizing what reliable sources say. The article now only has only two references to reliable sources. I suggest that you give top priority to improving the references. The article ought to define the term more clearly, and place the concept in academic context. By the way, it is no longer a stub so I will change the rating to "start". Keep up the good work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! More references is first on the list. Auricolour (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)