Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 857

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 850

←

Archive 855

How to send supporting documents to Wikipedia

Hello. Some things I added to the page I'm working on were removed because they needed a reference or to be substantiated. I was not able to find information on the Internet, so how do I send copies of old newspaper or magazine articles to Wikipedia so they can serve as evidence for what I am adding? Do I go to the page I'm working on and "Upload file"? I don't intend for them to actually be put on the page - just used as substantiation. Thank you!Citizen100 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Citizen100 - what you're suggesting actually won't work. There's no central place where they review sourcing - it's all distributed volunteers. Nonetheless, you don't have to have a link in order to use a source - indeed, textbooks are cited all the time. You can use the date, name of the publication and the article title, and extract info that is good, and add the info with a source. There's some more info here Wikipedia:Offline sources. Put a note on the talk page offering to send the pdf to anyone who questions your source, and assume good faith. Cheers! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. Citizen100 (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Citizen100, let me add a bit to Tim's explanation. Your source must be published and must be available to be accessed somehow. It doesn't have to be simple, but it must be possible. You cannot use unpublished documents such as letters or corporate memos. (If a letter is in a museum or library collection, that may be an exception). If you are using a book it must either be still available for sale (even if only on eBay) or in a library somewhere. You used the term "documents", so I felt this addition was needed. To be a usable source, it must be accessible somehow to anyone interested in seeing it. Even if that means trekking to Abu Dhabi to the only library that has it. John from Idegon (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

What about newspaper articles from two Canadian newspapers - the Ottawa Citizen and Kingston Whig Standard from 1956? We have the exact date. Citizen100 (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Tim and John both give good information. Your two Canadian papers are good reliable sources, but you should also have a page number in addition to a date for your articles. Also please note: in edit mode, they and I have used the colon (:) to indent our replies. The next reply to this thread would start with four colons, since I have used three. Colons normally increase by one with each reply to a thread, until space on the right of the page becomes scarce.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I was wondering if you could help me with something else. I was almost finished updating the page I was working on, which is about my father, Paul David Manson. As of this morning, I have been blocked from editing any further due to conflict of interest. I understand the concern, but I thought anyone could add to a page as long as the information is factual, unbiased, and has proper references. I have included good references for all of the facts I added, using your advice. This morning I received the following message, supposedly from a Wikipedia person (but it sounds more like a vandal to me because it's pretty insulting): "The article has been completely sanitized and turned into a fluff piece. As per WP:COI please cease editing the article and non-COI editors will figure out what to do with it. - Ahunt" The comment just doesn't look legitimate - maybe it was generated by a robot? Are you able to have a look at the page and if you determine that it is okay, could you please remove the template message at the top? I have finished adding the information I wanted to add. Thank you very much. Citizen100 (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you have missed the point of the message on your talk page. You haven't been blocked from editing (otherwise you would not be able to edit any page, even this one). Diannaa, who is a real person and an admin, placed a template message on your userpage warning you about conflict of interest. When you kept editing despite the warning, Ahunt, who is a long-time editor, reminded you what the template message said. Your actions on Paul David Manson have been to remove negative material and add positive material, which violates our neutral point of view policy. You are free to propose neutrally-worded additions to the article at Talk:Paul David Manson. shoy (reactions) 13:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment that it sounds like you're having a little difficulty getting how the conflict of interest policy works; the idea is to increase the likelihood that anyone editing an article is doing so in ways that don't have an axe to grind either for or against -- the editor isn't dealing with a motivation either to make the article about a favored subject favorable (e.g., oneself, one's relatives, one's company, a town of which one is the mayor) or make an article unfavorable simply because one does not favor the subject due to a conflict of interest (e.g., one's personal or professional rival, a competing firm, the six-fingered man who killed one's father and should prepare to die). There are legitimate ways to contribute without creating a COI. As recommended, one could put neutral recommendations on the Talk page, where someone unconnected to the subject can look at them, decide they make sense, and make the edits. One also could supply links to articles one believes would make informative inclusions, while noting that the conflict of interest prevents one from making the edit oneself. Again, that creates the opportunity for a neutral party to look at the article, decide there's useful material in it, and add that useful material. One also must accept and not interfere when other editors add truthful/factual information one wishes they had not added. Best wishes. Lawikitejana (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC) P.S. I added colons to indent your reply and the response to your reply.

I do understand the conflict of interest policy and the importance of everything remaining neutral. The only comment I added that wasn't neutral was that he was a skilled musician, so I removed it. I just didn't understand the process I had to follow to provide new information (on the talk page rather than editing directly myself). I find it frustrating that some Wikipedia pages are vetted so aggressively, while others don't seem to have been reviewed at all. While doing this, I used John De Chastelain's page as an example since he served at the same time as my dad (he took over command of the Canadian Armed Forces from my father) and his page is full of information with only a few references. I'm not saying the information isn't accurate - it probably is - it's just that the process seems to be inconsistent from one person to another. My purpose in all of this is to help Wikipedia present an accurate, up-to-date summary of my father's life and career of service to Canada. I had no idea it would be such an upsetting, demoralizing process. It appears to be almost finished now, so that's good. Citizen100 (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Just letting you know that as of today, everything is up-to-date and accurate on my father's page, so I won't need to deal with this anymore. Citizen100 (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

How to change the name of my company page

We are no longer a corporation, there for need to remove the word "corporation" from the name. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClecoCorpComm (talk • contribs) 17:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Any registered editor can do this. See Wikipedia:Page moves. 2A00:23C4:5D03:E100:305F:D789:20A:9B8 (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I moved the article to Cleco Holdings and updated it with a source for the name change. Requesting editor was blocked because of the promotional user name. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Original name used as the publicly known and personally used name: help sought

There is a name/person page whose Georgian name in the German language Wiki is presented as the primary name, noting an aka [the person's used/known/actual name]. He is a European writer in America and only goes by one name ever which never includes a Georgian and complicated last name which while on his birth certificate has since been given up, as is the case with many writers. I explored doing a 'move' but the real name has a page already, the sole purpose of which is to redirect to the never-used Georgian name. Can I delete the latter and move the former to be his name page? (The English language Wiki page is fine.) And once this is accomplished each can be linked to the other using one name. Thank you for any assistance with this. PaulThePony (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Paul

Hey PaulThePony. On the English Wikipedia, we would use whatever name is most commonly used, regardless of whether it is technically or legally correct. Not every language project does this. For example, I seem to recall that Russian articles are generally titled Last Name, First Name if I'm not mistaken. I'm afraid you will likely have to reach out to someone on the German Wikipedia and verify whether this conforms to their naming conventions, and whether their conventions differ significantly from ours. GMG ^talk 20:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that assistance, GMG PaulThePony (talk)Paul

Best way to display potential sources on talk pages?

Hello again everyone. I have a question related to how best to organize potential sources on talk pages. While editing neglected pages I have gotten into the habit of adding the Template:Find sources notice, then creating a new section where I indicate that I'm listing promising potential sources for the article to encourage myself and others to contribute. I typically create a bulleted list of citations (without the <ref> and </ref> tags). Is there a template designed for this purpose? I bet there is and I just haven't run across it. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 19:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Shashi Sushila Murray: Look at {{Ref talk}}, it will list the references within the section on the talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, RudolfRed. I looked through that template, then I went back to the Template:Find sources notice and scrolled to the bottom and noticed that they link to one that does exactly what I'm talking about: Template:Refideas. As long as I can still insert the citation templates into this (so that the citation is prepackaged and ready to be used), then this will function exactly the way I was intending.

Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Centering image in info box

Can someone please help with page: alexander de cadenet (artist)?

Done TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. Star!

+/-

After clicking the "View History" tab there is a list that shows: article revision dates, users, times, a brief description, and … a red or green number with a negative or positive sign. What's with the + or - and the numbers that follow it? Liberty5651 (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Liberty5651. It shows the change in the number of bytes (roughly corresponds to characters) in the page. See more at Wikipedia:Added or removed characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Bot question

Is ClueBotNG supposed to be clearing the sandbox? Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 23:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@CrazyMinecart88: No, that is the job of User:Cyberbot_I. RudolfRed (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Well, it is for some reason, or was last time I checked.

Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 23:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@CrazyMinecart88: Which sandbox are you looking at? I'm looking at WP:SANDBOX and see no edits by cluebot. RudolfRed (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

CrazyMinecart88, please do not paste images in with your signature. The majority of people access Wikipedia on small format devices such as phones and it really mucks up the formatting, and for no reason. Thank you! John from Idegon (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Don't worry, Pythoncoder already talked to me about that, and I fixed it. Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 23:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC) @RudolfRed: Yeah, I messed up. Turns out Cyberbot is doing it. Sorry about the false alarm! Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 23:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Do Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines Apply to "Discussion Pages"?

Or put, in a more succinct manner, do the Policies and Guidelines apply with the same "weight" (i.e. "force and effect") to the actions of a particular Editor, with regard to whether or not their actions were to post comments in the "Discussion" sections of a particular Article, vs. actually making edits to the article itself?

I've been given two warnings, and received the text "disruptive editing" via my "Talk" page, despite never having made a single actual "edit" to any page. It appears to me that "block" is the next step, I'm taking this all very seriously, and have read numerous Wikipedia Policies, Guidelines and frequently used "Essays" that relate to this, and not one of them makes the distinction between conduct on the "Discussion" pages, and making actual edits to Articles. Every single Article I've read frames their language such that it most obviously applies to actual edits to Articles, leaving exactly two interpretations:

A) Yes they apply equally to "edits" (in the "posting what I think" sense of the word) on Discussion pages. B) No, the standard is lowered due to what could be numerous reasons, such as 1) new, uninformed Editors making mistakes that new, uniformed Editors are expected to make, 2) lowering these standards is necessary for collaborative efforts, and "welcoming" new Editors, allowing them to be "bold", etc...

I was also given the text alluding to the idea of "circumventing Wikipedia Policies" so I choose at this time to not name names, etc... and would prefer to keep this in the hypothetical to avoid "stirring the pot". My intent is to actual LEARN the policies, before making another mistake and getting a block, or worse.

Secondary to all of this is another question I'll ask here rather than start a new topic. A few days ago I asked a question that is related to a "#NOTFORUM" message I received, and just a few days later I received another message saying that the topic had been "archived" from the Tea House due to a lack of responses. Something like "3 days", I think. Is this always an automatically initiated action? Could the archiving of this topic have been initiated "manually"?

Tym Whittier (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

A perhaps helpful thought here: The Talk pages of article are to hash out made, reverted or intended changes to the article pages. "Discussion" does not apply, nor 'Forum' (hence NOTFORUM). Since you have been warned twice, accept that your approach is wrong. To your last question, to my knowledge, Teahouse content is automatically archived frequently, an exception made to Teahouse queries that continue to get content added. Your query stopped getting new content, so "Poof!" It's not you. David notMD (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I just read the Administrator's "Notice Board" and was stunned at the level of nuance in their communication. They all know way more about everything than the level of communication I see aimed at me. I wouldn't be considering this now, except for this one Administrator opened the door that he was being "bullied" because he had substantive, Wikipedia Policy-based arguments and was an impediment to the goals of group of Administrators that wanted to do something that he believed was against Wikipedia Policy. His quote, paraphrased, was "If you want to violate Wikipedia Policy, change Wikipedia Policy." Here's the kicker: The other side gets to violate Wikipedia Policy, while still maintaining the veneer of compliance with Policy.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

What can I do to make this page more neutral?

HI, so I have been assigned the page "Honorary Male" and am having trouble finding areas on the page which need to be checked for neutrality. Can you highlight or direct me to areas which need to be revised? Thanks, (Jack) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack mahr (talk • contribs)

The IP editor who tagged the honorary male article neglected to start a corresponding discussion on the talk page, so there's nothing the rest of us can go on as far as determining their intentions. I removed the POV flag. Can you work on another article instead? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jack mahr: Please always sign every talk page post, including those you make on your own talk page. That way others can tell who said what, when, and in what order. Just type four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~) at the end of each post. Now, to address your question: I'm not really sure it's fair coming here seeking help in an assignment you've been set to do yourself. If you genuinely can't see some of the areas where neutrality could be improved then you're probably just skimming through it and not asking questions as you take in the content. The approach I might suggest you could take is this:

remember that this is an encyclopaedia. All that you read here should be encyclopaedic; neutral; well cited, unbiased and based upon reliable sources, and give good coverage of the topic in question.
skim through the article and gauge whether it appears to cover all possible issues around this topic.
re-read each line and consider whether factual statements are based on multiple sources, or perhaps selected by a past editor to present just one side of an issue or another.
read the sources! - do they seem reliable, or are they opinion pieces? Is there some agenda at work in the mind of that author who wrote the reference being used? Should there be other sources cited to either support it, or present alternative perspectives? Are the statements given genuinely fair and representative of a general consensus? Is there bias or unsupported opinions/statements? Is there Original Research presented here?
remove content based upon unreliable sources (like other Wikipedia pages! - a big no-no here), or, better still, find better sources.
either at the start, or at the end, go and search for your own reliable sources to get your own understanding of what the topic is about. (Don't forget Google books and journals, as well as the real paper things.) Now assess whether this Wikipedia page has addressed all the issues you uncovered, and in an even-handed and authoritative tone.
If you had been set this topic as an essay to write, would you have gone about it in this way? Or could there be a better way of structuring it?

And talking of If—:

If you can write for crowds and keep your neutrality,

' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,...

...If you can fill the unforgiving page

With sixty seconds' worth of cited stuff,

Yours is the Encyclopaedia and everything that's in it,

And - which is more - you'll be an Honorary male, my son!

Finally, I do appreciate these set assignments can be ruddy hard, but as a starter I'd point you to this section on the double bind where I think you really could have a field day. Sometimes assessing an article for its shortcomings can be a case of "not being able to see the wood for the trees". Good luck with your assignment, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi,

Please advise on how to 1)launch my wiki onto google 2) optimise search engine preferences. Thanks. EM — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHISHINGALAND (talk • contribs)

Hello, CHISHINGALAND and welcome to the Teahouse. But, oh dear, what should I say to you in answer to that question? Well, I'm really sorry, but for a start what you've put on your userpage must go immediately - forget trying to get it indexed and SEO-ed. I'm afraid your userpage is only intended for you to say a few words about yourself in the context of editing this encyclopaedia. It is not a free webhosting platform for your own personal ideas, thoughts, meanderings or favourite links. I'd like to give you a few moments to delete all that content yourself and start again, but I or another editor will be dropping by pretty soon to pop on a what we call 'speedy deletion' notice. That said, if it does get deleted, you're welcome to recreate it, but only if the content is in accordance with our guidance which you can read at WP:USERPAGE. regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted the user page in question, which is clearly inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Archiving

Which bot is the best and how to use it? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 03:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Please see This page for more information. Thanks. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 03:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Harsh Rathod Poke me! 03:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

New Article Reviewed - Next Steps?

To Whom It May Concern,

I created a draft page entitled "Draft:Malik Elarbi" and received a notification saying the page has been reviewed by user PRehse.

Can you please provide me guidance on what that means? Has it been approved / rejected? Is there further review? Are there any further action items I must take?

Page Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Malik_Elarbi Reviewer Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PRehse

Thanks, Houseofcards4022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houseofcards4022 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Houseofcards4022 and welcome to the Teahouse.

There are a number of types of review that happen on Wikipedia and some of these types of review are also known as "patrol". You page was still waiting for its Article for Creation review at the time PRehse, working on recent changes or new pages patrol, took a look at it and marked it as "patrolled". That usually just means they have given it a quick onceover to check for gross violations of policies that need to be acted on immediately.

Since then, an AfC reviewer has declined your draft. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Houseofcards4022: I was looking to see the decline notice on your talk page, but it wasn't there. It seems that Anit13 is the editor who submitted the draft for review, without having otherwise edited it, so the notice went to User talk:Anit13. Just assure me that you and Anit13 are different people, please. Using more than one account on Wikipedia can lead to problems. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Hi jmcgnh. I do not know who Anit13 is. Thank you for looking into this - very much appreciated. Houseofcards4022 (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:World Rugby Rankings

Would it be possible for an administrator put some protection on this page please? It is often vandalised.

Many thanks. Jowaninpensans (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The place for requesting protection is WP:RFPP. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Jowaninpensans (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Parking some content from a page temporarily

Hello. If I am editing an article and I want to rewrite sections of it, but keep the stuff I want to rewrite around for reference, is there an acceptable way of doing this. For example, page is "Topic", can I put the stuff I want to park into either "Topic/Hold" or "Draft:Topic"? I know about the sandbox, but my thinking is on the Talk page, you can refer other users to the fact that you parked the text. I am thinking about this for cases where text is too large to comfortably park in "Topic/Talk". Thanks. Seahawk01 (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Seahawk01 and welcome back to the Teahouse.

The most common place to do this is in a user subpage. You can name your user subpage to match the original page; you can mark it with the template {{Workpage}}. Just remember to attribute the copying in the edit summary when you do this, according to the policy at WP:COPYWITHIN. If you are collaborating with other users, you can use the talk page of the original article to discuss changes, using links to your user subpage as needed.

You can't make subpages in article space. Your "Topic/Hold" would be a top-level page with a slash in its name. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: ah, OK, I see now you can make a user subpage. I have read before about the attribution, but wasn't aware you needed to do it on a copy in your user page. Thanks again for the help and the Teahouse has been pretty instructive for me, so thanks for that, too! Seahawk01 (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Seahawk01: Yes, I wasn't sure whether I had to explain making user subpages. One way to make them is to start at userspace draft and fill in the name you want. Perhaps more direct is to "go" to the page you want to create and accept the offer to create it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: I wasn't aware of that template. So thanks very much for that reply. I've quite a few subpages of my own that I might now go and add it too. It might be worth saying, Seahawk01, that you can get a list of all the sub-pages any user has created by going to their userpage, selecting the Page tab, then clicking the 'Subpages' link. It's helpful when you can't quite remember the precise name you gave it.Nick Moyes (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I nominated an article for deletion

Can anyone check if it is properly done .New here.It is the 2nd nom for the page.Thanks.Nervegolgi (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Big help if you provide the name of the article here. David notMD (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States and state-sponsored terrorism (2nd nomination) ? - X201 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

DJ Slick stuart and DJ Roja

Hello,

Been working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DJ_Slick_Stuart_and_DJ_Roja since June 2018, since then, I have made all necessary changes but still get the same feedback "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia......" I sent to this forum by invite to work with an experienced editor to add more to the article. I really need you help, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techcherio (talk • contribs) 13:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I cut stuff that felt promotional. Added places where citations are needed. Recommend you also cut that list of performers they have shared stages with. Being on same stage as someone notable does not make them notable. What this really needs is citations to lengthy published content about them. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

My First Draft Article. Please Help to review

Hi all my senior editors, I drafted my first article Draft:Krishnagiri Village as part of 'Wikipedia Asian Month' and submitted for review. As it is a drafted article, i am not able to submit it for 'Wikipedia Asian Month' participation. Can someone please review it and suggest any edit if required? so that i can submit it.

This article is about a highly populated village in Wayanad, Kerala, India and i found it is missing in Wikipedia.

Arajc (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Arajc: The draft has been reviewed and accepted. Now you can submit it for the contest. In addition, you can also create article directly in mainspace, though using draft is not a bad thing too. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

simple personality profile

Hi, will you please guide me to the easiest way to create a personality profile, perhaps a template I can use that has the box with image/bio info etc. Thanks! D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavorcity1 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social media platform with personality profiles; it is an encyclopedia with articles on notable subjects. See the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Flavorcity1: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your use of the word 'profile' suggests to me that you may have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. This is an encyclopedia, and not social media for people or businesses to have "profiles". As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has articles about subjects that summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about them, indicating how they are notable as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

How do you create an article

I am trying to create an article on the video game Pooh and Tiggers honey safari and im having trouble publishing it so everyoneone can help and seeThesecretsource2 (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)theseretsouce2

Courtesy link: Draft:Pooh and Tigger hunny safari

How do I get an article from another language translated?

This article from German Wikipedia on the Yakutat and Southern Railway would be a useful addition. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

New Orleans Public School Desegregation November 14, 1960

The 60th Anniversary of the Desegregation of New Orleans Public Schools will be in 2020. On November 14, 1960 according to the City of New Orleans History Marker FOUR African American 6 year old girls known as The New Orleans Four (Leona Tate, Ruby Bridges, Tessie Prevost and Gail Etienne) were the first students to integrate New Orleans Public Schools. Unfortunately, there is a false narrative of what happened on that faithfull day of November 14, 1960 and a blatant omission of three Civil Rights Pioneers who were (according to the timelines of what actually took place that day) the first to cross the doors of desegregation. It was not Ruby Bridges alone who was the "first" to integrate New Orleans Public Schools. I am working with the City of New Orleans to change this false narrative to the actual accounts of what took place in New Orleans on November 14, 1960.

I am a new editor and I just edited this page (New Orleans school deseggregation crisis on Wikipedia [[1]] I would like to create new pages on Leona Tate as well as Tessie Prevost and Gail Etienne just as there is a page for Ruby Bridges. They each individually deserve to have a page dedicated to them as well as create a page that is dedicated to The New Orleans Four and the History Marker that was unveiled in the City of New Orleans to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the New Orleans Public School Desegregation.

Can someone guide me to a tutorial as to how I can create new pages? I could certainly use some help starting a new page.

Thank you, Dee — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeTMeredith (talk • contribs) 17:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@DeeTMeredith: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. Creating a new article is not an easy task for new editors, you may want to start by working to improve existing articles instead. You can read WP:YFA for guidance on how to create an article, and there is a wizard there you can use to create a draft article for review. RudolfRed (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DeeTMeredith. Unfortunately, your edits to New Orleans school desegregation crisis were reverted because they did not comply with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It looked to me like you were trying to make lots of names bold, but we use bold in very limited ways on Wikipedia, most commonly in the first sentence of an article only. So, please comply with the Manual of Style in your future editing.

We have an article about Ruby Bridges because she is notable as Wikipedia defines that term. She has been written about extensively and is the subject of a famous painting, The Problem We All Live With by Norman Rockwell which was on display in the White House in recent years. She is the subject of a book and a movie. Please be aware that we do not accept articles because we think a person deserves an article, and we do not dedicate articles to people. These three people should have neutral encyclopedia articles written about them if reliable sources have written extensively about those people, as they certainly have about Bridges. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

Hello! I'm editing Starling Bank and there seems to be many accounts in the edit history of that page that are specifically dedicated to editing that page and pages related to it. I believe this may be a conflict of interest (one of the accounts has UserboxCOI of the company's founder on their user page). Does something need to be done about this? Thanks ccixam(talk) 23:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If Charlottelorimer is in fact Anne Boden, founder of Starling Bank (or any other employee), then the rule that applies is WP:PAID, not COI. The means that Charlottelorimer should declare a paid relationship to Starling Bank on own User page and on Talk of article. Furthermore, C should not directly edit the article. Rather, should post proposed changes in the article's Talk with the hope that a non-affiliated editor will agree that the changes are neutral point of view, relevant and appropriately cited, and move to the article. David notMD (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Anne Boden also appears to be editing the article Anne Boden, and may have created it using IP 185.52.147.234 before registering with Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: A quick Google search might well reveal any direct connection, though I'm not going to state anything here, per this policy on outing other editors. I have flagged Anne Boden (clearly a notable person with an MBE) to highlight the COI, and will leave a note on Charlottelorimer's page to advise her that all editors are obligated under our WP:PAID policy to declare on their userpage whether they are editing as a paid employee, and should not edit either the Starling Bank page or the Anne Boden page directly, but to submit changes as an Edit Request. The faulty COI template on their userpage is insufficient declaration, they must follow WP:PAID. This issue appears to have slipped under the radar, so well done to Ccixam for highlighting these concerns. Nick Moyes (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for what in hindsight probably outing. David notMD (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't panic, David notMD, you didn't. You simply drew a possible, but wrong conclusion from a user declaration. I've made the mistake in the past of stating the Google-obvious, then worrying whether I'd acted too rashly, albeit from the best of intentions. Should you ever feel you've done that, the first step might be to delete elements of your post, and then consider seeking advice and a WP:REVDEL by emailing an admin. On the one time I fell foul of possible WP:OUTING here, the admin advised that I had acted a little rashly, but didn't follow through on my request to revdel it, so all I could do was edit out my statement myself. But this is all theoretical in this instance. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

David notMD Nick Moyes Thank you both for your help on this! :) ccixam(talk) 19:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Anime

can you guys visit my page and ask me some anime questions? you would really be doing me a solid! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimeFurry18 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello AnimeFurry18 and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia, and as such it is not social media to do or discuss things not related to improving this encyclopedia. If you just want to discuss anime with others, I'm sure a Google search would turn up numerous discussion forums for anime. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

SO can u suggest some people on here that could suggest anime with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimeFurry18 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: This user has been blocked indefinitely - clearly not here to help build an encyclopaedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Found spam website links on Wikipedia, Now What?

I'm getting into too much trouble messing around in the "Discussion Pages" so I've found something else that's constructive. I know there are people that do "spam patrol" and "anti-vandalism" on Wikipedia. Not sure how this is categorized. Please don't do this for me; I want to learn how to do it myself.

The site is "Epik.com", a website hosting service. I happened upon it because Gab.com recently moved to Epik, and so I went looking to Wikipedia to read about Epik, found no Article about the business, and so to dig further I used the Google "site:wikipedia" search function for the text "epik" and found an obvious spam link. Mentioned it in that Article's "Discussion" pages, for someone else to deal with, but then on 2nd thought this might be a good, safe way for me to get some Wikipedia experience without risk of being considered "disruptive", etc...

The site: "epik.com"

Please note I want the whole enchilada, meaning 1) don't do it for me, 2) don't gloss over the process in abstracts, etc... and expect me to be fully functional after a single, perfunctory post. Meaning, if the process is more involved than reading a single policy or guideline, don't post a single post or guideline and expect me to figure the whole thing out. Wikipedia is extraordinarily complex, to a great extent due to ambiguous language in it's policies. At least that's been my experience so far.Tym Whittier (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Tym Whittier and I'm glad to see that you haven't given up on Wikipedia or the Teahouse. It is indeed a complex thing.

Let's start with your simple example involving "epik.com". I see your note on Talk:Mario Machado. I'm going to conduct the detailed discussion of what to do there on that talk page, but the summary for here in the Teahouse is that we're going to look for an archive url to replace a url has become "unfit". Anyone else may get there before I do, so I can't promise that fixing this will be something you get to do yourself. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go there, and do that.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tym Whittier. Welcome back. I'm not going to go into long explanations (having just done one for another user above), but I am going to say 'well spotted'. You can also search within Wikipedia for articles or talk pages containing keywords, as I've just done, finding quite a few pages (see here). And yes, that does seem like a very helpful set of edits to start getting your teeth into. Don't forget to leave an edit summary - something like 'removing spam link' will be fine. I think those spam links are so blatant that you don't need anyone to cite any policies, guidelines or talk pages for you to visit. Just be bold, and fix it. You could use Wikipedia's search box to look for and fix commonly misspelled words. But don't try changing American<->British spellings like colour<->color, but look for words that you often encounter and wince over. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Lol. Before I read this, I had already "fixed" your "mispelled" word (above). Also fixed "blatantt". The Chrome browser has an excellent spell check function built in, and it's useful for this sort of thing. I know about consistency of style with regard to spelling, i.e. if it's one way in the Article, it should be consistent. I assume that direct quotes are an exception, and if the Article is "aimed" at, or about a particular region. Today is a better day. I've had a bit of a breakthrough with regard to being able to see my tendency to post in a "forum" style, vs. encyclopedic. Realized it's an internal problem and not a simple matter the external text. And also my instinctive reaction to coercive pressure is to fight, which is the pretty much the opposite of learning and gaining new awareness. For this reason I want to move away from "Discussion" pages and into other, less-risky pursuits. This is something I can do. I'll start hunting spam links.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tym Whittier, it is considered disruptive to fix others spelling mistakes in talk discussions. If you could fix the error, you obviously got the meaning. How would you like it if someone changed "Tym" to the much more common "Tim"? It isn't much different, and this is not a debate. Please do not do that again per WP:TPG. John from Idegon (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Tym Whittier:. Ha! Those typos of mine made me laugh, too, Tym. I personally have no problem with anyone, through good faith, fixing my obvious typos (they're inevitable when one's rushing on talk pages), but do be careful with other editors' contributions on Talk pages. I say this because it's generally seen as bad form to make even small change to their contributions. This could be an especially delicate issue were you to find yourself in conflict with another editor and then, through force of habit, correcting their comments to you. (Ah, whilst slowly drafting this on my mobile, I see another exoerienced editor has mentioned this to you.) I am delighted you've come to see the difference between the forum style of approach and the one we use here. I'm afraid that sometimes there can be a few hard knocks at the start for some newcomers here. Don't be discouraged by the sometimes rather curt guidance you might receive along the way. Making a few mistakes as you go, and acting on the advice then received from others is actually a very good way to learn, even if it can feel like the school of hard knocks, sometimes! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Those edits resulted in a 3rd warning, and I'm not laughing. I'm glad you don't care, and question the draconian response to the issue. Read my "Talk" page. I'm supposed to compare that to deliberately misspelling your name. This is not a "friendly" place. I don't care about "hard knocks". It's the fastest and most efficient way to learn. My concern is a railroad to a block or ban.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Tym Whittier. I'm really sorry you feel Wikipedia hasn't seemed like a friendly place to you. Problem is we've 5 million + articles, 30,000 active editors contributing at any one time, tons of vandalism, loads of newbies and many very experienced editors. I'm just as guilty as the next man/woman of coming down hard on some editors who don't follow 'our rules' even when - to be frank - they haven't had much chance to understand those rules. Today, I've been grateful to two editors who came to my talk page to highlight typos I had made in one post here. One was minor, whilst one, if corrected, would have changed completely the meaning of something I said (from incorrect, to correct, I might add!). We genuinely don't have lots of time to chat - that's not our purpose. So editors who aren't conforming to our norms do get gently reminded how best to act here, then more firmly pointed towards breaches of policy if they continue. Tweaking other people's edits is one such no-no. I'm probably more garrulous than most here, but John from Idegon was quite right to highlight on your talk page that we need editors to edit, not to eat up others time in engaging in forum-like chatter. So go get some good, straight forward editing under your belt and pretty you'll soon be regarded as a net positive contributor here. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Restore revisions

On User:PorkchopGMX/userpage I made some edits in March 2018 before getting the page speedy deleted because I misunderstood what a WikiGame is. Can you please restore the revisions before the speedy deletion? PorkchopGMX (Sign your posts with four tildes!) 03:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

We can help you out at WP:REFUND. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 03:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

English-German translator requested for editing purposes

I would like to make the name of a person with an English Wiki page consistent across the English and German pages such that they'd be able to link to one another, but also because the German page uses a name not used by the person. (I go into a bit more detail elsewhere in the Teahouse, posted and responded to on 11/5.)

I've been informed that the German language Wikipedia rules may differ. I don't speak or read German so this is a roadblock for me. Does the English language Wiki offer translators to assist with making changes across two Wikipedias and if so, how might I find such a person?

Thank you. PaulThePony (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Paul

@PaulThePony: I'm not terribly familiar with de-wiki's policies but I'm a native German speaker, so feel free to leave me a message if you need anything translated. Regards So Why 13:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@PaulThePony: Please link or provide urls to both pages in all posts, please. It makes all our lives easier, and we can help you better - and quicker. I should say that you don't need to have identical names in two wikis to provide an inter-wiki link in the left hand column of the page. I'm unclear if this is really all you're seeking to achieve. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Nick Moyes. I have done as you suggested over to the talk page of SoWhy. PaulThePony (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Paul

Improving sources on article about NYT bestselling author

Hey!

I haven't created that many articles yet and am struggling trying to replace my sources with appropriate ones for a NYT bestselling author. I've submitted a draft for this article and have done a deep dive to find better sources because the reason why it was declined was that I didn't utilize enough interviews and secondary sources. I did that, but I still need some help improving this article. There's a lot online about this author, but mostly just reviews about her books, nothing of note that I think would be appropriate to add.

Can someone help me improve this article please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelcake57 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Angelcake57. When I look at your draft, it does not really look like a biography but more like a list of books. Interviews are not independent sources and so do not contribute to notability. The best type of sources for an author biography are those independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the author as a person, discussing their background, education, career as a whole, influences and so on. Lacking such sources, it is difficult to write an acceptable biography. Perhaps this is a case (and this is common) where the books are more obviously notable than the author. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Just want submit page.

I am not one of those contributors spend years editing. I just wanted submit Christian meaning to law of jealousies. It currently is not shown on Google anywhere I saw. I put on my user page God showed me this. I glad say my faith before hand.

How do I get it submitted, either it will or it won't be put up. I just like get things started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael A. Christian (talk • contribs) 01:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Michael A. Christian: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I have added a helpful wizard to help you finalize your article and prepare it for the mainspace. Once it's ready, simply send it in with the button that says "Submit your draft for review!" Looking at the article so far, it may be declined due to no sources. You might want to read up on WP:CITE, as well as WP:MOS and WP:FIRSTARTICLE, among many places. You may also find help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. StaringAtTheStars (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Michael A. Christian, but your current draft Draft:The law of jealousies in Numbers 5. is not the kind of thing that Wikipedia publishes. Wikipedia does not publish original thought or interpretation; it summarises what published sources say about a subject. At the moment, your draft has no references at all; but simply adding references to the biblical sources (though desirable) would not help, because the draft is about the interpretation of the passage. An article discussing and comparing different published interpretations of the passage would probably be welcome (though it must strictly avoid trying to reach any conclusion that is not in the sources), but presenting an interpretation in Wikipedia's voice is not what Wikipedia does. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing question

Hi... How does one edit the top paragraph of an entry, when there is no link for "edit source?" There is a film that I co-wrote, and for some reason, my name is only listed in the credits along the margin of the page, but not up above in the summary. How do I edit this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViaMessenger (talk • contribs) 11:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You can either use the "Edit" tab at the top of the page (between "Read" and "View history") which lets you edit the whole page, or use the "Appearance" section of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets to "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". - David Biddulph (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@ViaMessenger: Is the article A Prayer Before Dawn (film)? If so, I have "edit source" links showing both at the top of the article, and also next to each section. The lead section lists two writers, which is the same as the Infobox and agrees with IMDb - can you provide a source for any extra name you think should also be credited?--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

ViaMessenger. Please be aware that, because of your conflict of interest, you are discouraged from editing the article directly. You are welcome to put a suggestion for improvement on the article's talk page, preferably with a reliable published source confirming the information you want to add or change. --ColinFine (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

buffalo pound lake info

the buffalo pound lake saskatchewan site says 3 km n of sun valley, whereas sun valley is a village on the shores of buffalo pound lake. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.3.153.69 (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the mention of distance from Sun Valley from Buffalo Pound Lake. Deor (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

nickname

Edward "Ed" Trevelyan should be Edward "Eddie" Trevelyan

This is the wiki page for Edward Trevelyan, born 8/14/55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevelyan55 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi - unfortunately, the only source for the Edward Trevelyan article makes it look like the "Ed" nickname was more common. I did a quick search and can't find anything that suggests the "Eddie" usage is more common. In any case, this discussion should be on the talk page. I started the discussion at Talk:Edward Trevelyan#Nickname. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Trevelyan55. Welcome to the Wikipedia Teahouse, and thank you for your post, and for not trying to edit the article yourself this time. I'm assuming you are the subject of the article, though of course I have no idea if it's someone pretending to be that person. (Though why would they?) Anyway, congratulations on your gold medal, but right now, the article is based on only one reference, which refers to Trevelyan as "Ed", not "Eddie". Could I ask you to supply links to other sources which show differently, and to post them on the talk page of the article, please? If you can do that, an editor will be only too happy to make this relatively minor change for you. If that's not possible, the other way to make that change is to email our volunteer team from an account which will prove you are who you say you are and then to make that change. You can find out how to do that by visiting this page. I do appreciate this is a very minor tweak you're suggesting making, so is making that change really that important? Maybe having no nickname stated would be even better? (I'd happily delete it for you.) Normally I would also remove the names of wives and children of a living person unless the reference includes that as publicly available information. I see that you added in that detail back in 2014. Are you really sure you want it there? It's the kind of stuff that most editors remove from articles about living people in order to protect their privacy. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Trevelyan55. I found a reference verifying the nickname and have added it to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that usage is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, per MOS:NICKNAME. There is no need to explicitly mention that someone named Edward is referred to as "Ed" or "Eddie", that some one named James is referred to as Jim or Jimmy, etc. This is especially the case for inserting nicknames in quotation marks at the opening of an article. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

help trimming citations

Hi! I'm trying to trim citations in the 'misnomer' section of Cincinnati chili, but every time I try to take a citation out, I end up breaking the entire references section. Can anyone help me figure out what I'm doing wrong? Thanks! ETA: Okay, I figured out the basics, but still not sure how to delete a citation when it is the first time it was used and given a citename -- still looking for help on that, if someone would be so kind! valereee (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure which one you're having trouble with - it looks fine so far. If you remove the first named citation and it's used again with a shorter name, just cut and paste the naming citation over the shorter name. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

OH. Duh, lol. valereee (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Confusing redlinks

What would you do to the red links in Sam Blakeslee#Committee Membership? My guess is most of those topics probably don't have articles. But what I can also see is, if they had, they would have longer names. Probably names containing "United States", like the two that were links to redirects. Should I remove the links I can't find the correct targets for? Add something like {{clarify|What's the full name of these committees?}} after the list? Ask Wikipedia:WikiProject United States if anyone there has an idea what the committees might be called? Or something else? – Pretended leer {talk} 18:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pretended leer: As redlinks are intended for use where new articles are either needed, or very likely to be created in the future, my approach would be to wonder if an editor had inserted them prior to creating all those amazing new articles. But the edits go back to June 2014, from an IP editor who only ever made a handful of additions to this one page. So, I would remove all the hyperlinks, adding commas between the post held on each committee, and semi-colons between each entry (or relay with bullets). If you can add a citation to allow verification of these committees, that would be brill, too. I would agree with you that the names themselves are not very good, so we are unlikely ever turn them into functioning blue hyperlinks. How does that sound to you? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks. I've removed the redlinks and changed the punctuation, but I'm thinking maybe that section should use a bulletted list. Then the semicolons probably aren't necessary. I avoided the article for a short while so as not to edit an article about US politics right before or during a US election. I'm guessing I won't find a reliable source with a list of all committees this politician has been a member of, so I'll see if I can find sources for his membership of individual committees. But the vague names of some committees (at least two were called by something else than their official names) makes that hard. If I manage to find sources for at least half of them and they contain additional information such as when and how long he was in them, I might consider adding that information. But adding such information for less than half of them would probably look a bit silly. – Pretended leer {talk} 20:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)