Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 860

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 855←Archive 858Archive 859Archive 860Archive 861Archive 862→Archive 865

Creating a biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Biography

A person of note, currently has a redirect on their page. I wanted to create a page about this individual using the template.

I did the following

  1. Changed the redirect to edit the page and added ###{{substantial:Biography}}###
  2. Typed in previously prepared text

I ended up with the templet content with my stuff beneath.

How do I get a draft going which I can check before publishing?


into the place where there used to be a redirect

  1. pasted in previously prepared text

When I go to preview, I find the contents of the template page with my new text underneath. When I go to edit, I can only edit my pasted text, the template material does not appear in the edit window.

I think that I need to save in someway after putting in the {{subs:Biography}}

I want to be able to edit the template as a draft and only publish when I have got all the parts correct.

Where am I going wrong or where can I find slightly more complete instructions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerak99 (talk • contribs)

@Nerak99: Template:Biography is optional to use. It is meant for drafts. Wikipedia:Articles for creation is recommended to create drafts. You have to write {{subst:Biography}} and save the page before you can make changes to the example text. If you use Wikipedia:Articles for creation then there will be a "Submit" button to submit the page for review when you think it's ready. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Your best bet is to prepare your draft in "Draft:" namespace and submit it for review, see WP:Articles for creation. You can save the draft as often as you need to using the "Publish" button. This is confusingly named and used to be labelled "Save"; the draft will be available for you to make further edits, and though it is visible to Wikipedia editors it isn't "published" in the sense of being visible in mainspace to Google searches or even to default Wikipedia searches. When you submit it for review, if your draft is accepted for publication the reviewer will be able to publish it in place of the redirect in mainspace. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Image

How to go to the source mode to add image to Wikipedia page?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aayush anuj (talk • contribs) 11:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You may read Help:Pictures ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 13:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A New Enlightenment: An Interview with Steven Pinker (http://raintaxi.com/5-31-2018)

Shawn Vorda and I conducted an interview this year with Steven Pinker that was published in Rain Taxi magazine. Shawn posted it two days ago where you could click and read the Rain Taxi online interview. However, it was removed from the Wikipedia website. Why was the interview deleted? Secondly, I have about two dozen interviews with novelists and another dozen book reviews (published in various magazines) that I would like to submit to Wikipedia. How can I do this and do I need any permission? Thank you.---Allan Vorda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psoundslike (talk • contribs) 04:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Allan. There may be a few reasons why it was deleted. The main one is because some users may not think "Raintaxi.com" is a reliable source. That doesn't necessarily mean that they think it contains false material; perhaps they think that the information there is simply "not good enough".
By the way, I wouldn't upload those other information sources you mentioned--mostly because you said that they originated from magazines. Many of the stricter editors don't like magazines.
Tough luck! Hope the going gets better.
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 05:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Poundslike: Another reason your edit may have been reverted is that you garbled the URL; so that it linked to an article that had nothing to do with Pinker. —teb728 t c 07:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Psoundslike. There are a couple of reasons why your additions might be problematic. First, adding links to your own work (whether papers, interviews, novels, or anything else) is regarded as editing with a conflict of interest, so it is always preferable to suggest the addition on the article's talk page and leave it for an uninvolved editor to decide whether or not it is appropriate for the article. Secondly, the use of external links is quite tightly controlled: does this link fall within on of the acceptable reasons in External links? --ColinFine (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
A more stringent hurdle is that, as your own work, it'll be rejected as original research which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. I think it may be acceptable at Wikisource:, our sister project. Cabayi (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

LS,

Found a lot of information about copyright on images, but I doubt the order of the steps. For a page on a professor in Arts I have to get permission from some art institutions to publish images. Do I first upload the images to Commons and add the permission later, or do I first have to have the permission? I want it to be as easy as possible for the institutions. I found a template page, but wikipedia says it prefers to use the interactive Release Generator... Will this be easy to use for the person who has to give the permission?

Sounds like a rookie question, also because a few years ago I already made a page with images and video's, but somehow the procedure seems to have changed a bit.

To summarize: what is the order of the steps to be taken?

Thanks for help! MarqyF (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey MarqyF. So long as you have permission from the copyright owner, you should upload the image and add {{OTRS pending}} to the file page. Then you should have the copyright owner send an email following the directions at WP:CONSENT which includes the file name of the image you uploaded, so that the person answering the email can find it. The person who answers the email will update the image to verify the license. If an email isn't received after several weeks, then the image will be deleted, and will only be restored once permission is received. GMGtalk 14:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, this was exactly the form I was looking for. Order of steps is clear now too. Cheers! MarqyF (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Syntax user manual

When I want to edit, I find I am looking at the syntax of other articles. Is there a user manual of editing syntax? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijames1 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wikijames1: Is Help:Wikitext the sort of thing you're looking for? Deor (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I guess I'd add too that this is probably how most people learn, and I definitely learned by just looking at similar articles and copying their markup. So there's nothing wrong with that. GMGtalk 14:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is it. Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijames1 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wikijames1: You might also look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC) thank youWikijames1 (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Copywritten images

Hello! I have read the Fair Use Wizard, but I'm not clear on if you can upload an image, like the cover of a movie or video game, and just say under the description of the image the owner of that cover art, or if that's against fair use. Pierson D (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Pierson D, and thanks for asking. The image and the way it is used must meet all the criteria in the WP:Non-free content criteria. If they do, then you can upload it (to Wikipedia, not to Commons) as non-free media. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Having trouble archiving my talk page

I've tried to archive my talkpage following the instructions at WP:TALKARCHIVE, first using Cluebot, and then lowercase sigmabot, but for whatever reason it doesn't seem to be working. In both cases, I waited several days (almost two weeks with Cluebot), but the bots both seem to be ignoring my page. I have several conversations older than the minimum age parameter, so I really don't understand what's going on. Do I need to manually create the pages that will store the archive before the bots come through? signed, Rosguill talk 16:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, welcome to the Teahouse. There is nothing to archive with the current archiving code on your talk page. It says algo=old(90d) and minthreadstoarchive=2. This means only archive threads which are at least 90 days old, and only run archiving when there are at least 2 threads to archive. You only have one thread older than 90 days. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

HELP

Im looking for help to Update my Wikipedia Info, i have my information on Google Demographics and verified Google Search, and would like to have all my artist information on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio Janpierre (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Julio Janpierre: If there is an article about you on this site, see WP:BLP.
Whether or not there is an article about you, also see WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Julio Janpierre, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you have a very common misconception, that Wikipedia has anything at all to do with promoting your career or enhancing your web presence. It hasn't, and attempts to use it for that purpose usually end in frustration. If Wikipedia has an article about you, it will not be your article. It should not be written by you, it should not be edited by you, and it should contain very little material that comes from you. It should instead be a summary of what people who have no connection with you have chosen to publish in reliable, edited places. Your involvement in it should be limited to making suggestions, which uninvolved editors will decide whether to implement or not. --ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

New Article needing citations

I've clicked the 'publish changes' for my new article on Jessie Payne in my sandbox. Fingers crossed some lovely Wiki editor will now check it to see if it's suitable...but how do I know that's the case? i.e. Will i get a message to say someone is looking at it? I know that I need to add extra info to the citations, or to learn how to input them correctly, and I'll get on with trying to make sense of that and learning how to do it...if I am reassured that the article is suitable! (Any training days coming up? I did my last article 4 years ago and things have changed)

Courtesy link User:Tanzi22/sandbox or nobody will know what you are referring to. Theroadislong (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

OHCHR is United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR is UN Refugee Agency)

Hi. I saw a mistake regarding United Nations Human Rights Council, but only realized after that there are many words that needs to be corrected. I have never contributed to Wikipedia before and should probably not have done anything before taking a better look at what I got myself into. I don't have the time to update everything. Can someone please help? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitin1969 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Nitin1969:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Article-related concerns are usually better discussed at the article's associated talkpage, in this case Talk:United Nations Human Rights Council. However, I believe you are mixing up OHCHR and UNHRC (not UNHCR as mentioned in the hatnote on top of the article). I have reverted your good-faith edit but fixed a few instances of UNHRC - UNHCR confusion in the article (see also the article's "history" for specific changes and their reasoning). If you'd like to discuss this further, please start a thread at the article's talkpage, where other interested editors can also chime in. Thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia - if you see any obvious errors, you are of course welcome to fix them yourself or raise them on the articles' respective talkpages. Whereever possible, please make sure to provide independent reliable sources for substantial content changes. GermanJoe (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Creating a page for a Talent

Hello,

I am trying to make a page for one of our digital talent, Amber Scholl. She is a YouTube sensation and our team is trying to have a page for her on Wikipedia. I have been submitting drafts for her page, but it keeps declining. Please advise on how to move forward.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amberscholl1 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amberscholl1: You need to read about what makes a subject Notable and also be aware of conflict of interest and paid editing guidelines. You should follow the guidance at WP:YFA and use the wizard there to create a draft for review. Based on your sandbox, this is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. RudolfRed (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
And remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your client. RudolfRed (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Amberscholl1. The very next thing that you must do here on Wikipedia is to comply with our mandatory paid editing disclosure. This is not negotiable. The next thing that you must do is realize that Wikipedia is not an online platform for you to promote your clients. There are countless other platforms where that is acceptable, like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and so on. On the other hand, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and not a place for advertising or promotion. You are talking about User:Amberscholl1/sandbox, which is an unreferenced and highly promotional draft. There is no way that this draft will be accepted into the encyclopedia, unless it is dramatically rewritten and properly referenced. As for your claim that she is a "YouTube sensation", that is exactly the type of over the top promotionalism that simply isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, if you are not Amber Scholl, then your username may be violating the policy on misleading usernames. See WP:Username. RudolfRed (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I belive that having an article published is a pure luck.

I wounder why this article that I have created is declined when similar articles already exist on Wikipedia with similar activities as company that I have tried to put on Wikipedia. I belive that there are enough referencies on Ewla draft page, but maybe I am just mising the point, and that is that some articles will be published, and some will not. Its pure luck. Similar pages already exist, with very little referencies... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroslav.uzice87 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Miroslav.uzice87: If you have found any articles that do not cite independent reliable sources that sufficiently establish notability, or have a promotional tone, please point them out for us so we can decline or delete those as needed.
If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are the steps you should follow:
1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.
2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.
5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. It has nothing whatsoever to do with luck but with abiding by the rather clear standards we have in place. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hellio, Miroslav.uzice87.Your draft article includes overtly promotional language such as "Ewla fashion brand represents style and quality since 1994 when it was founded. The company provides a focused selection of high quality fashion and fashion basics at compelling values in an innovative and exciting environment. Effortless style, authenticity and easy-going living are at the heart of the brand's philosophy." This kind of language is fine on the company's website and in its marketing materials but is completely inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article. If you see that type of language in other articles, list this articles here and I will delete it if other editors don't delete it first. I suggest that you read about the neutral point of view and conflict of interest. We take these policies seriously. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
First question I'd have is, "Is the topic/subject noteable?" If not, then everything else is a waste of time. You could have everything you need and if the topic isn't noteable, it will still get deleted.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

No SAVE button in sandbox

I have no SAVE button in my Sandbox. Am I doing something wrong or must I complete my work in one sitting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijames1 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikijames1, Save = Publish changes, does that help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Wikijames1: Welcome to the Teahouse, and may I just expand on what Gråbergs Gråa Sång says above? Everything we do is online here, even our sandboxes can be seen by anyone who cares to look for them. For that reason we no longer 'save' our edits, we publish the changes we made. So go ahead and ht the big, blue 'Publish changes' button to save your work. But, and it's a big BUT, publishing our changes made to our sandbox, talk page or draft page, is not the same as Publishing an article into the main part of the encyclopaedia - even if the words we use sound similar. Once you get to the stage of wanting to create an article, have a read of this page on making your first article and having it reviewed. We always recommend new editors to start off gently however. So you might like to have a go at gaining all fifteen badges in our interactive learning tour called The Wikipedia Adventure. I'll pop by in a mo and leave you a welcome message with a handful of useful links to some of the key bits of Wikipedia to get you started. Then do feel free to ask any further questions should you find yourself getting stuck. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I have to say that that button's new name is starting to really annoy me, not long ago I encountered this [1]. I think we are loosing several "first edits" because of it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: The 'Publish changes' name change has annoyed and confused many new editors since it was introduced, on legal advice, by the Wikimedia Foundation team in Dec 2017 ("after several years of discussions" see here), not least because it was implemented with very poor communication and insufficient coordination to ensure that all the critical help and guidance pages were amended to reflect that change. However, these issues have all now been addressed, so we are, I'm afraid, simply going to have to get used to it. But I will ping Whatamidoing_(WMF) so s/he is aware that new editors are still being confused between "save" and "publish". Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Nick. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all Wikijames1 (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wikijames1: I'm not so completely confident as Nick that all of the help and guidance pages have been corrected, so I want to ask if you saw advice to use a "SAVE" button somewhere on Wikipedia. I know I found and corrected a somewhat obscure mention of SAVE a few months ago. If it was a source off-wiki that mentioned the SAVE button, it's understandable that an older set of instructions or a video may refer to the old name of the button, but it's not under our control (other than perhaps sending a comment to the outfit that it is giving out obsolete information). — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 16:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
See this discussion. He was looking for a private way to save his page, without publishing it on the internet where anyone could read it.
So far, every new editor who has asked for a "Save" button (and has explained why) has been looking for a non-public way to save their work. That function is not available on Wikipedia, and it never has been. This fact might need to be added to some help pages. If you want to save your work privately (e.g., so your first edit can be "perfect", then you would have to copy it and save the text somehow on your own computer.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I think you're right about this change "losing" a few first edits, but those are edits that people do not mean to post on the internet in the first place, so this is probably a good thing. It should mean somewhat less work for oversighters. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I don't think that's true enough, I think a significant number of edits are "scared away" because they read "publish changes" as something else than for example posting a question at Teahouse. But that's my view, hard to prove. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
However, I think "publish changes" may also scare away some "thought this was non-public" edits, which of course it should. I'm pretty sure I've seen that misunderstanding before the change. I still think there's some baby in that bathwater, but I agree there's bathwater. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
And I'm willing to agree that there's baby in there, too. I doubt that we'll ever find a perfect solution. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
A non-perfect solution..? On WP!? Well I never! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for posting that! 😆 Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced that He was looking for a private way to save his page is an accurate representation of I just wanted to temporarily save my work for further editing at a later time (diff). Furthermore, even if it was true that every new editor who has asked for a "Save" button (and has explained why) has been looking for a non-public way to save their work, that is clearly not the same as "every new editor who did not click the publish change button did so because they wanted to changes to be private" (which is the correct premise for the argument that follows, and which is false in that absolute form, per GGS's diff where it is clear that the user is OK with making the changes public as long as it is not a definitive version). I remember having seen a couple of new editors taking here at the Teahouse who displayed that thinking, though I cannot be bothered to dig the archives right now.
The real question is how much of each type of problem we have more or less after the change. I do not think anyone has clear statistics on that (if they have, I would be interested to hear them). I do think the claim of oversighters having less work is extremely spurious though. Of course we are never going to see a diff or log entry proving that point (since well, oversight is about removing them from view) but "I guess they must exist" is less convincing than "I have seen them". Also, "that edit was not perfect, I want my first log entry to be stellar" is no valid grounds for oversight.
I think Whatamidoing (WMF) is being trapped in cabinet collective responsibility here. Legal mandated the change to be safe on the you-are-actually-releasing-this-under-CC side, everything else is post-hoc justification because it was (wisely) calculated that the (reasonable IMO) position "our lawyers told us so, now shut up" would not fly with the community. (Pinging because I do not like trash-talking in people's backs, not because I expect a reply: the policy is not going to change, so I do not care a lot whether the official line is factually justified or whether Whatamidoing privately agrees with it, and it is not like I am entitled to an answer to my rant.) TigraanClick here to contact me 09:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I think that there was as much of a "product" question as a "legal" one with this. User testing by the researchers confirmed that "Save" was (now, but less so back when Wikipedia started) associated with private changing (in English, anyway, but that's what matters for this wiki). This result was consistent with comments reported from class editing projects and comments from editors over the last few years. It was the "product" side that drove the "legal" side, because – well, I'd say that understanding what the button does leads to informed consent about the consequences of clicking it, but in their jargon, they'd probably say something about a meeting of the minds or perhaps occasionally mens rea, with the common idea being that users need to understand what they're doing before they do it. Yes, that's relevant to the releasing-this-under-CC side of things, but it's occasionally relevant to the massive-invasion-of-privacy side of things and the you-just-earned-a-libel-lawsuit side of things, too.
Also, in my experience, "Legal said so, so cope" actually does fly in most communities, including this one. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't often find it worth the time to argue with that one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
In response to jmcgnh, I'm reasonably confident in my statement because I was so frustrated earlier this year with the failure to properly coordinate this 'minor change' that I put in a lot of effort to find, amend or notify others to update all the suddenly-out-of-date help pages that newcomers rely upon every day. But if you - or any editor - do uncover any more, please leave details at this page where I keep a running tally of issues needing action.
But, Whatamidoing (WMF) et al, what I still think we need is different alt-text when you mouseover the big, blue 'Publish changes' button in Mainspace and in Userspace. Surely it wouldn't take too much to change the latter to something along the lines of: Publish changes to your own userpage, or, dare I say, Save and publish changes to your own userpage?. Maybe something for the Community Wishlist Survey? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Moyes (talk • contribs) 02:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I fixed template {{2nd chance}} yesterday. It is just now added to your list as a done item. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you think that "Save and publish changes to your own userpage" on a user sandbox page would increase or decrease the likelihood of a brand-new editor interpreting this as "Click this button if and only if you want this posted very publicly and probably irrevocably on the internet right now"?
I don't know whether it's technically possible at the moment, but I think the first question is going to be about whether people will understand the consequences. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 Now that I'm no longer a new user, The current set up is perfectly fine. But for a new user, there are some things that are confusing. When I started I found You Tube very helpful. For example, I wanted to reply to a message and was told to respond on 'this' page, I searched for hours on that page looking for a button to click or an edit box. I messaged an admin and he said to just respond on that page. Again searched that page. Am I on the right page, maybe it hasn't been updated?. Ok, finally I figured it out, I wrote on my page and somehow someone else got the message! But now that i've learned to swim, everything is fine and I'm happy!.Wikijames1 (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
You might want to take a 2nd look at the above text and rethink that opinion on "swimming".Tym Whittier (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Introductory phrase in Demographics section

While editing boroughs, townships, and census-designated places in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania, I have found the phrase "In the borough the population was spread out," followed by a discussion of the ages of the population. When I read it, I envisioned the inhabitants spread out in the street waiting to be handcuffed and taken away. Since I am certain that this is not what the author intended to say, I have changed many of them to say "In the borough the age of the population was spread out,". A slight improvement but not necessarily adequate. See page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorville,_Pennsylvania as an example. Possible improvements might be "The median age of the population was 39 years, less than the median age for Armstrong County, which was 40 years. The detailed statistics are: " This is only one suggestion and I am certain that there are better ones out there.

My question is: should these be changed? If so, what other possibilities are there?

Niccolo1512 (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Niccolo1512. Feel free to change the phrase if you wish. After all, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Thank you,
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 01:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I have discovered that the phrase is boilerplate inserted by a script. That means that there are probably thousands of populations "spread out". I will at least get Armstrong County off the ground.

When will an article become unprotected?

Hello, I’ve been wanting to edit an article about Gavin McInnes. I watched an NBC interview of him and the proud boys where he said himself it was fair to call him Islamophobic. But every time anyone else edits, the edit is reverted back to Anti-Islam. Why is that? If he called himself an Islamophobe why can’t we describe him that way? Second, every time I try to edit the page the page is protected. I see others making edits, but I can’t. When does page protection end and can I make this edit and attribute it to the interview? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatimaniqbal (talk • contribs) 21:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles get protected because of disruption by well-meaning readers who try to change things in a way that runs counter to Wikipedia editorial policies and guidelines. The article is semi-protected until 15 November 2018. Once your account has been active for 4 days with at least 10 edits, you will be able to edit this article. Until then, you can propose changes on the talk page. Preface your proposed change with the tag {{edit semi-protected}}. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Gavin is a primary source. You'll need a secondary source that says he described himself as "Islamophobic".Tym Whittier (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Obcaecati illum eveniet nemo explicabo, dolorum aliquid veniam perferendis saepe repellat deserunt exercitationem animi, reprehenderit consectetur? Obcaecati voluptates non mollitia id et!

I'm new...??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.232.61 (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey anon. If you have a specific question about editing Wikipedia, I'm sure there are plenty of folks around willing to help. GMGtalk 14:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you're looking for the Latin Wikipedia? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: That was lorem ipsum, not a real text. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
But it is latin! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång - Is Jabberwocky English? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Ave. Quaeris fortasse paginam Lorem ipsum. --ColinFine (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Looks to me like someone is working on/tweaking their spam bot.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

what to do about a page with no sources?

Hello, I was going though this page: Terry v. Ohio and realized there are almost no sources for most of the article, except for court decisions and then, for only one or two sections. Last night I added in all the "citation needed" and "unreferenced" templates.

I think this is a very important Fourth Amendment decision and I would like to rewrite it over the next month. My question is should I just delete the unreferenced sections and start over? I have no idea where the original editor got sources from.

Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Seahawk01 and welcome back to the Teahouse.
You should feel free to replace any unreferenced sections with new text that contains proper references. Deleting long-standing, though unreferenced, text should be done with a degree of caution and it's always worth dropping a note on the talk page outlining your intentions and reasoning, if you don't have the completed replacement already in hand. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Kabongo

I’ve seen on the article about Kabongo Tshimanga you have his date of birth wrong click into his the number 2 at the side his actually born on the 22/07/97 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:9F2F:5E00:9CDF:DC27:3585:F323 (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP user. The Teahouse is used for questions about using Wikipedia. If you would like to give a suggestion regarding the article, please post this suggestion at the article's talk page.
Thank you,
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 02:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I've changed the date of birth to match the reference. Dbfirs 08:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Help with Citations

I'm trying to get away from the Tea House and non-participatory conversations in the "Discussion" sections, based on the advice of at least two Editors here. To that end I have set out two small projects to learn how to do things and immediately have run into a wall.

One Article has a "spam" citation, that I thought I'd simply delete, but when I went to "Edit" that Section (at the bottom of an Article), all that displayed was a blank page, with just this:

"= = References = = { { reflist } }"

(I broke it up to prevent it from rendering.)

Assume that means the "references" are somewhere else. Where? How do I get there?

Second project is to include a cite in an Article. The Article uses the source but doesn't include it. Is this the same place & process?Tym Whittier (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tym Whittier. References are put in at the spot the number appears in the article. The software generates the footnote at the point where "reflist" appears. See Help:Referencing for beginners for details. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay I read all that, very confusing, says there's 3 ways to edit the references, I want to start out with Wikipedia Markup first, then move to tools, maybe. But again the entire page is blank when I "edit" it, despite the fact that the Article lists over a hundred reference. I assume that's because they are "somewhere else". I can't delete a cite from a blank page. Do you need me to paste the specific page?Tym Whittier (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Tym Whittier. The Wikipedia software justs displays the formatted references in the "References" section of the article, but that's not really where they're typically located. The actual references themselves are in most cases added to the body of the article near the content they're intended to support. It will basically look something like this: Article content<ref>citation</ref>. There are various ways to find the location of a specific reference in an article, but the easiest is problably to go to the "References" section and then click on the ^ symbol (it works like a back-link to the footnote marker for the reference) and it should take you to location of the reference. Once you know the location, you can open the edit window for the relevant seciton of the article, find the reference and edit it as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It's what I was looking for. Now my concern is that I'm going to "Be Bold" and make a mess of things. I read a thing once where someone messed with the cites and threw the whole numbering system off. I started this thinking it would be a relatively easy and safe project to learn on. Was I wrong?Tym Whittier (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Tym Whittier: As you're working in Source editor mode, not in Visual Editor, you could always do a text search in your browser for these characters: <ref (I've intentionally left off the closing chevron of <ref>because some references are given shortcut names so they can be used again and again within one article, and these begin <ref name="shortcut">. But whatever you do, don't make the mistake I made when I started out editing: I'd not realised one could insert reference details using a nice easy popup template by clicking the 'Cite' button. Instead, I nearly went mad, trying to manually edit the code for each reference by cutting, pasting and then modifying an existing reference to create a new one. Life's actually a lot easier than that, whichever editor you prefer to use, as both have 'Cite' buttons in their toolbars. And to answer your latest reply, don't worry if you do mess up a page by 'being bold'. Just make sure you a) Preview the page before publishing changes, and b) checking how the saved/published page appears by looking for nasty red error messages. Even if you do that,you can go into 'View History' find your last entry on the top row and click 'Undo' to revert to the previous version. But, if you use the 'Cite' button to select the relevant template, you shouldn't be making errors with the markup anyway. I'm sure you'll be fine. Go for it. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's OK to be WP:BOLD since pretty much any problem you cause can be fixed by simply reverting your edit. Before clicking "Publish changes", hit "Show preview" first to see whether you made any mistakes: the software will show the citations in preview window and point out any errors in red. Just go back and fix them as needed. The footnote numbers are automatically added by the software based upon the location of the citation: the first citation added is assigned #1 and then it follows from there. So, you'll only change the number if you change the location of the citation. Most citation errors are simple syntax errors where somebody forgets to complete a parameter or add a "ref" or "/ref" tag, so these are no big deal; however, you can practice the formatting in your user sandbox if you want to make sure you got it right. The main thing you need to be concerned with is whether the source you're citing is a WP:RS and whether you're removing an existing citation for the right reason. Those two things are typically the ones where someone might disagree with what you did and revert your edit; if that happens, follow WP:BRD and use the article talk page to discuss. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
One last thing to remember which is kind of important is that Wikipedia doesn't have one particular citation style it prefers over all others; in other words, there's is no "Wikipedia house style" for citing sources. So, you need to be aware of things such as WP:CITEVAR and WP:DATEUNIFY, etc. Generally, you should try to adhere to the style already being used in the article, unless there's a really good policy or guideline based reason for changing it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for all of that. It's all new except the idea that style consistency is standardized within the Article and not from Article to Article. Still think I need to get all these messages multiple times however. This stuff is extraordinarily complex.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
... and just to add that the Wikipedia software takes care of the reference numbering, so don't try to adjust it. Just ignore the numbers. They will be automatically renumbered if you add or remove a reference. Dbfirs 08:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Help

I don't want engage in an edit war so I'm requesting to go through this page history. The article was not according to WP:NPV so I fixed that but a person is inserting unsourced material again and again and writing "Will provide citation shortly". So the article is becoming a fan page. Hamim000000 (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hamim000000: Welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like there have now been a few eyes on this new article. You were right to be concerned and to warn another editor over adding statements unsupported by citations, though I note the person did add some soon afterwards. Any content that does not seem encyclopaedic, and only serves as unsupported trivia to promote some minor celebrity should be removed - but always ensure you justify each one with a clear edit summary. Nick \Moyes
Renotifying Hamim000000 as I failed to sign my previous post due to an edit conflict. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Spanish version of 'Fina Puigdevall' page I created has disappeared :(

Hi everyone!

I have been asked to contribute a new Wikipedia page as an assignment for my Master's Degree, and I decided to create the Spanish version of a page about Catalan chef Fina Puigdevall (the page is currently only available in Catalan).

Yesterday I published my translation and was working on it, adding references, linking it through to other Wikipedia content... this morning, it's all gone. I have looked at my contributions page and it doesn't even show there! There's no record of my work anywhere - yet I was publishing changes and amends incrementally, clicking on 'publish' and explaining the changes every so often... I just don't understand where I could have gone wrong? I even checked that my page was correctly published by accessing it through the Catalan version?

If you have any idea what I can do to recover my work, or at least not to do the same mistakes again, I would be really grateful!

Thank you in advance,

Laura (laurahueto93) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurahueto93 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Laurahueto93: welcome to the Teahouse! Every language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, and it looks like you created the page at the Spanish-language version, which was of course the appropriate place for a Spanish-language article. However, that means that editors at the English-language version can't really help. I can only see that a page has been deleted today at https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fina_Puigdevall , and I assume it's the article you created. You'll need to ask the deleting administrator over at es.wikipedia about it - you can see their user name and a link to their user talk page in the deletion log. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much for your help, I didn't realise the distinction between the different versions of the wikipedia depending on the language. Thank you so much, I have asked him why he deleted it. Laurahueto93 (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Utility of primary, non-independent, reliable sources

I have been trying to understand exactly what Wikipedia policies define as the correct handling of sourcing content from and citing academic Computer Science publications. To preface with the exact questions I wish to have clarified:

  1. Is expanding articles with information pulled from primary, reliable, but not independent sources (with citation) viewed as a desired and meaningful contribution?
  2. What degree of reference is required to satisfy WP:LISTCOMPANY?

I have come to understand from WP:RS that citing a paper from a respected, peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings would be viewed as a reliable source. In the vast majority of cases, the publications are written by the same people that did the research, and so the source counts as primary, per WP:PRIMARY. By the same reasoning though, this close relationship and vested interest in the work would make the source not independent, according to WP:IS.

Wikipedia, seems to view secondary, independent, reliable sources as the ideal. WP:SCHOLARSHIP highlights a strong preference for secondary sources. The guidelines on Non-independent sources suggests using non-independent sources for content is okay, but suggests qualifying all information pulled from a non-independent source as potentially suspect. Is the preference for secondary sources only a preference? Does the requirement of marking suspect all information pulled from non-independent sources apply to academic publications?

In scanning through existing articles and their citations, I'm assuming the answer for (1) is "Yes". However, these articles seem to frequently have citations that are primary, not reliable, and not independent. Should I be trying to remove/replace these citations?

WP:LISTCOMPANY views a source being both independent and reliable as a requirement for inclusion on a list. Within the realm of CS academia, I understand a survey paper can likely be considered an independent and reliable publication. However, it's not clear to me the extent of a reference or examination that would be required to satisfy WP:LISTCOMPANY in this context. If a system, proprietary or open source, is cited as a reference, mentioned in related works, or benchmarked against in a reliable, primary publication, would any of those count as a sufficient reference? Or is it required for the secondary publication to be a detailed analysis of the primary source? If it's a reference to a system not developed by the authors of the primary publication, does it count as an independent reference, even though the overall paper is not independent?

tl;dr: I could use some pointers on what is "idealistically Wikipedian" as to what should be used for sources, or to very well sourced technical topics.

Thanks! Linearizable (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Free-use photos

I'm trying to figure out how the whole free-use thing for images of people who are no longer living works, and I keep going around in circles on various policy pages. I started two articles today, Roz Young and Marj Heyduck, and of course I'd like to include photos. Both women were photographed quite often. I've actually been trying to work my network as they both were active in the town I grew up in, but so far no luck finding someone who knows someone who actually photographed either of them themselves. How do I go about finding a free-use photo? Thanks for any help! valereee (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello valereee. I'm Rebestalic. I recommend you go into source mode, and click on the picture button, fifth from the left on the toolbar. Find any picture you want about Roz Yound or Marj Heyduck, and click "upload". Then, you should see an option to go to the Commons upload wizard. You can then follow the page's instructions.
Good luck,
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 00:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Valereee. I'm not entirely sure what you are asking; but I've a suspicion (based on your mentioning people who are no longer living) that you are actually talking about using non-free images. Wikipedia has a strong preference for images which are free to reuse: either they have been put in the public domain explicitly or by reason of their age, or the copyright holder has explicitly licensed them under a suitable licence. These are the only kind of images that Commons will accept.
But because of the difficulty of finding some images, English Wikipedia accepts non-free images in certain circumstances, as long as all of the criteria in the non-free content criteria have been met: in that case the image may be uploaded to English Wikipedia (not to Commons). One of the criteria is that there is no reasonable prospect of finding a free image; for that reason, non-free images of living people are hardly ever acceptable. A non-free image of a no-longer-living person may be acceptable, but will not automatically be so: the uploader will still need to show that the image and its use meet all the criteria.
Does this clarify things? --ColinFine (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
ColinFine yes, that clarifies things, thanks. The use meets the first nine criteria; for the Roz Young article I've actually reached out to a local historian who wrote a book about this woman and is displaying a perfect photo of her on his blog and facebook page. I don't know if he is the actual copyright holder, as it looks like a professional portrait, but if he isn't he may know who is. Rebestalic thanks, I tried to follow your instructions, but it seems to be wanting me to upload the photo from my own computer, which I'm happy to do except for my own concerns about that making it look like I'm trying to claim copyright. And also, of course, I can't yet answer that tenth criterion, which I imagine is where the upload wizard is going next. valereee (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
{U|Valereee}}: as long as all the criteria are met, permission is not required (though of course you may choose to ask for it for politeness' sake). --ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, good to know, thanks! Wish I could save this helpful discussion so I can find it again three years from now when I try to reteach it to myself, lol valereee (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Valereee: wait a few days until it's been archived, so that it will have a permanent name, and then put the link [[WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_859#Free-use photos]] somewhere you can find it, such as your user page. (It might not be 859: use the Archive search - just under the contents list above - to find which archive it gets put in). --ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Found a photo and even tracked down the author, who gave permission and even provided a higher-quality image, so I uploaded it! Fingers crossed I uploaded correctly, and thanks again for the help! valereee (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

BTS Controversy situation

Hello.

User Phoenix7777 is adding fake news to the BTS article and I'm afraid it will be happen a lot these days so I ask some cooperation and advice.

The nazi hat issue the user added was an edit made by antis years ago from a magazine photoshoot Ceci magazine Korea here. You can literally search the magazine scans and see it's fake and the extremist right wing group leaded by Makoto Sakurai knows it's fake yet are still spreading the edit.

This user is also citing a biased articles without doing the proper research about the liberation day shirt that is released in korea, in no way the shirt is mocking the A-Bomb as media like The Guardian are reporting, the own creator of the shirt already gave interviews and apologized for using the sensitive image. South Korea and Japan are going through a tense diplomatic situation and Japanese media are using the group to spread fake news, you can read the Billboard reference about it. Also the accusation about the flag at the concert is fake and the company from the artist Seo Taiji that organized the event is already consulting to their lawyers to sue for defamation the people accusing the flag being Nazi.

We need help to protect the page from biased points of view from jnetz and fans until the situation is cleared because this situation is beyond fandoms, there are politics and extremist groups included. ↳ GiovannaG . . . (My talk) 16:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@GiovannaG: Calling a sourced edit "fake news" and trying to disprove it with original research is unlikely to win you any friends or convince seasoned editors. If you think The Guardian is incorrect, provide reliable sources that said so. I will urge my fellow editors to watch this page but not for the reasons you mention. It seems to me that there might be an issue with fangirls of this particular band trying to prevent anything negative to be said about them. Regards SoWhy 16:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@GiovannaG: I agree with SoWhy (who I've already pinged via the BTS Talk page,so shalln't do again here), and I have left my views that the new controversy section is highly relevant. Suggesting that well respected organisations such as The Guardian Newspaper and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre are engaging in fake news against BTS is rather ridiculous - it certainly merits coverage here, providing it's done in an encyclopaedic, balanced manner. And I say this - as you know - as a bit of an accidental supporter of BTS. (By the way: I'm really pleased to see you've now got that standalone page on Jungkook, and my daughter had an absolutely superb time at the BTS gig at the O2 arena in London last month.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Update: There is now a WP:RFC on the talk page of this article to gain consensus on whether or not content from WP:RS is appropriate to include in a new section on this page, and the page itself has been temporarily given protection from editing. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Ozedam to WillKomen

Thanks so much for your friendly welcome User:WillKomen. I can't wait to start editing! Ozedam (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ozedam, and welcome to the Teahouse! I've moved your comment to a new section here, because it's not part of the discussion about Administrators where you posted it. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. If you want to directly talk to another editor, the best place to do so is on their "Talk page" (for more information, see Help:Talk pages). However, User:WillKomen is not a real user, but an account used by the Wikipedia Adventure (which I see you've already followed). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask them here, and happy editing! rchard2scout (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Protection request :

I want to get the article Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Statistics , which contains a good deal of important Tottenham Hotspur F.C. records and statistics protected so that vandals don't do anything or make uncited edits . How do I do it ? I WOS A CHOC (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@I WOS A CHOC: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Articles are not protected preemptively; however, if there is an actual problem with vandalism, you may make a request at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: Thanks , I will see if I can get it protected . I WOS A CHOC (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I WOS A CHOC blocked as a sockpuppet of Anuchak. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_860&oldid=1001619399"