Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 906

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 900←Archive 904Archive 905Archive 906Archive 907Archive 908→Archive 910

Is there any effort to root out any bias in political articles?

I have been reading over a lot of political articles especially those of US politics. Though I am not a US national I am starting to see a common trend of anti Republican rhetoric backed up by usually single news sources which don't seem reliable. I think Wikipedia should not be a place of this political bias and we should try to present the facts to the readers rather than trying to manipulate them. I could compile a list of articles I feel need revision I've only commented on one so far, but thought maybe I should try and get them all fixed. If anyone else is trying to fix this issue then feel free to message me and give me a list of articles to revise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2318065780A (talk • contribs) 10:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep doing as you were doing before and commenting on the articles saying the statements you think are biased, although I would recommend proposing what to change it to. If you want to see what Wikipedia considers reliable and unreliable, see WP:RS/P. [Username Needed] 11:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Question about translation

Is it well advised to remove the an expand language maintenance template if the article it links to is itself a translation of another, more informative, version of the article in question in another language?

With the example of Francisco Briceño, was it advised to remove the {Expand French|Francisco Briceño|date=December 2015} template?

As fr:Francisco Briceño, is already a translated article from Spanish with no new reliable material to expand the English article with, I thought more convenient to only keep the Expand spanish template already present on the article, as said article is much more expansive and referenced than the French one. But I struggle finding anything about this specific case in the guidelines, and might be doing something extremely unproductive without knowing it. Sadenar40000 (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Sadenar40000: and welcome to the Teahouse. The additional tag was redundant and provided no useful advice in this case (imo). By the way: you can remove most maintenance tags without discussion, if you have checked the underlying issue and believe that it has been resolved (or that the tag was misplaced to begin with) - a brief edit summary is sufficient. Occasional disagreements about maintenance tags should be resolved via talkpage discussion just like any other article-related issue. GermanJoe (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Sadenar40000:...and if you are interested in translation, we could always use help at PNT. The talk-page is also a good place to get any questions concerning translations answered. Lectonar (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

How to make a citation that requires two urls

Here's the cite (look at the code):

Haithman, Diane (April 22, 2001). "THREE FOR THE SHOW; It Was Written by Speakerphone; A New Yorker and an Angeleno talked long-distance to turn an urban myth into the Gothic tale 'Lavender Girl'". Los Angeles Times. p. CAL.5.

The article continues on this page:

https://www.newspapers.com/image/188542275/?terms=bucchino

Please enlighten me on how to format this. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Deisenbe. You can use Template:Cite news without the |url= parameter as explained in WP:SAYWHERE if you want. If, however, you want to add the newspaper.com urls, then perhaps the following will work.
Haithman, Diane (April 22, 2001). "Three for the Show; It Was Written by Speakerphone; A New Yorker and an Angeleno talked long-distance to turn an urban myth into the Gothic tale 'Lavender Girl'". Los Angeles Times. The article continues on this page: https://www.newspapers.com/image/188542275. p. CAL.5. Retrieved February 13, 2019 – via Newspapers.com. {{cite news}}: External link in |others= (help)
{{cite news|title=Three for the Show; It Was Written by Speakerphone; A New Yorker and an Angeleno talked long-distance to turn an urban myth into the Gothic tale 'Lavender Girl'|last=Haithman|first=Diane|newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]|url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/188541524/|url-access=subscription|date=April 22, 2001|page=CAL.5|via=[[Newspaper.com]]|others=The article continues on this page: https://www.newspapers.com/image/188542275|access-date=February 13, 2019}}
-- Marchjuly (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Communicating new information to a user who has already been a substantial contributor to an article

I have created an account for myself but I have never edited a Wikipedia article before and am totally unfamiliar with the process. I have substantial new information for an existing biography article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_Stuart_Larrabee The background is that I have written a published book on the person the subject of the biography, and there is now online also a substantial filmed interview concerning the person's work (she was an artist, photographic work). Rather than to try and edit the article myself (given that I really do not know the edit system), I would prefer to be able to communicate links to the new book and the interview to the one user/contributor who has historically been the person who has built this Wikepedia biography. The edit history gives me the contributor's user name but I see no obvious way in which I can send the user a message. Can you let me know how I can do this? PeterMEllFr (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@PeterMellFr: Go to the history section by clicking on the tab, and then find the editor’s name and click on the word talk next to their name. Then click on the new section tab, write them a note, and sign it with the four tildes. Save. They will then be alerted that there’s a message on their talk page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 10:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@PeterMellFr: Problem there. The article was created in 2006, but the largest addition to content was by one editor in 2015 and that person stopped editing after that. Several editors have made small contributions since then. At the Talk page for the article you could add the reference information for the book and the interview with the hope that some other editor will see it an incorporate information and the references into the article, but this could take a long time or never happen. David notMD (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi PeterMEllFr, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a decent chance you can find editors willing to work with you on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women artists, so try asking there. However, in the long run, learning how to do it yourself is much more effective. Easy stuff is easy, complex stuff is harder but is quite possible to learn over time. Start with Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:EXPERT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi PeterMEllFr. As above, the editor only made edits over two days in 2015, so a post to his or her talk page is exceedingly unlikely to be seen. However, that user did set up email, as have you. To the extent the email address they provided is still in active use, it might be seen. Here's the link: Special:EmailUser/Teganhowlett. For future reference, the way to navigate to this would be to go to the person's userpage (here, User:Teganhowlett), and then invoke the "Email this user" link under tools on the left hand side panel. Best regards-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Reference removal

Hello, On this company page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_(boats)

Reference 1. is an article that needs to be deleted as it they are using it for advertising purposes as found at the end of the article. The company page that the reference directs to is a used boat brokerage and no partnership or affiliation with Formula Boats.

Is there a way to get the article deleted?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliestalentmgmt (talk • contribs) 12:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Same article, of the four refs, 1st has historical information by is by a boat broker, 2nd is a video, 3rd and 4th not working. David notMD (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Problem with a black listed link.

Hi Teahouse, It's Kanika this side, I am facing a problem with a link to a website which has been blacklisted by Wikipedia. I need to include this link as it is pretty important. Please help me find a solution to this problem.

Thanks, Kanika — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waliakanika (talk • contribs) 14:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

You'll find information at WP:Blacklist. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Waliakanika The reason sources are blacklisted is that they're spammers and generally considered almost completely unreliable. If that source is the only source you can find for a certain piece of information, it's unlikely to be accurate information and highly likely to be challenged by other editors. You might post to the talk page of the article in question asking other editors if they can help you find a reliable alternate source. valereee (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of profile

I wish to delete my profile from Wikipedia. I find the Wikipedia project to be immature and not serious enough to participate in.

Where can I delete my profile? DotPeter (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Your User page has no information. You are within your rights to delete everything on your Talk page. Edits you have made to articles will remain, as will comments you left on Talk pages of articles or other editors. David notMD (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@David notMD: Two requests: please ping people asking questions when you reply. Use the {{Reply to}} templare to do that, or any of redirections to it, say {{ping}} or {{re}}; and please take care to indent your entries with appropriate number of colons in front of them, so the thread of a talk will be more clear to readers. Best regards. --CiaPan (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Ping DotPeter. --CiaPan (talk)
I am simply asking instructions on how to delete my profile. Not to get additional irrelevant information. I am simply looking for a link or button saying "Delete profile". DotPeter (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi DotPeter, what do you mean by your "profile"? Usually when people talk about their "profile" here, they mean their userpage or an autobiography, but you haven't created either. If you are talking about your account, that is not possible, but you can simply stop using it. —teb728 t c 07:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi DotPeter. There is no "Delete profile" button, and user accounts cannot be deleted as explained in Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts. You can blank your userpage if you like as explained in Wikipedia:User pages#Deletion of user pages, but that would be pointless since there is currently no content at all on your user page and the page itself has not yet been created. The best you can do if you want to truly want to leave Wikipedia via some type of formal procedure is to request a Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
But the easy way is to just stop editing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@DotPeter:
  1. There is no such thing in Wikipedia like your profile. There exists your account, identified by the name 'DotPeter'. This is persistent – you can not delete it, and nobody can. This is because of licensing of Wikipedia contents, which requires attribution of all contribution. So neither you nor any administrator can 'wipe out' a record of your contributions to Wikipedia. It must stay here.
  2. You can, however, stop contributing. To do this, simply stop – don't log-in anymore and don't make any edits. You can declare it if you want, so that all interested co-editors will know you decided to leave. See Wikipedia:Retiring for guidance.
  3. If one retires, one can also request removal of their user page and talk page. This way both the current contents and the history disappear (but that doesn't seem to apply to you, as your Talk page doesn't contain any detailed information on you personally or your contributions, and your User page does not even exist).
  4. You can also request renaming your account. This applies if your account name discloses too much about you, possibly allowing an unwanted identification of you in real life. In such case you might see introductory page Wikipedia:Changing username. I doubt, however, this applies to you – your account name does not contain a surname, birth date, job position, place of living... Be aware that after the rename every contribution remains, and becomes attributed to a new name. So those who have previously seen your contribution, e.g. in discussions on talk pages, may still recognize you. The only way to avoid that is stopping any activity at Wikipedia...
  5. ...or re-starting as a new user account, under a different name. Beware, however, that using two or more accounts simultaneously or alternatively may result in WP:BLOCKing you from further editing due to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry! See Wikipedia:Clean start policy for detail.
  6. Finally, if you want to leave AND wipe-out your name AND never return, see advice by Marchjuly above on Courtesy vanishing.
Best regards. CiaPan (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Article problem

How to add reference? How can I cut copy paste information on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Ahmad's Wiki World (talk • contribs) 14:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners. Your account is very new, so some articles may be locked for you until you are WP:AUTOCONFIRMed, but try discussing on the article's talkpage. If you find WP:COPYPASTEd stuff in articles, it is often, but not always, correct to remove it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Changing main photo in an entry

The portrait image in the entry for David Hartley (philosopher) is actually of his son, David Hartley (the Younger). There are images of David Hartley, the philosopher, in Wikipedia Commons. How do I replace the existing image with the correct one? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCA48 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, RCA48.
Step 1. Go to Commons and find the appropriate category. This may be accomplished by scrolling down the article to the External links section and clicking the link in the "Wikimedia Commons has media related to David Hartley (1705-1757)." frame at the right side. You should land at c:Category:David Hartley (1705-1757).
Step 2. Chosse appropriate image, say c:file:Portrait of D. Hartley, 17thC Wellcome L0002618.jpg.
Step 3. Store its name somewhere: Portrait of D. Hartley, 17thC Wellcome L0002618.jpg.
Step 4. Go back to the article, scroll to the top and click the Edit this page link.
Step 5. Find the beginning of the {{Infobox philosopher}} template (close to the top of the page) and the parameter image in it. Replace the value with the stored file name.
Step 6. Supply a relevant edit summary (say, 'replaced the portrait with the correct one' or something) and click Show preview.
Step 7. Review the result and click Publish changes.
Done. :) CiaPan (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@RCA48: Good work on replacing the image! -- CiaPan (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! RCA48 —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Identifying which sources enable subject to meet WP:GNG

Hello, i am attempting to publish the following page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeff_Ayeroff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Symphony19#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_Jeff_Ayeroff_%28February_13%29

I feel that i have supplied reliable sources (Los Angeles Times, Rolling Stone, Billboard, New York Post, etc.) but have nonetheless been denied, with the comment: "Please identify which sources enable him to meet WP:GNG"" I am unclear how i would specifically identify that within the editor and/or why these sources are inadequate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symphony19 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Symphony19. Basically, for WP:GNG interviews with the subject and bare mentions won't help much. Since this is a WP:BLP New York Post (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) may not be seen as having much weight. Try adding these to the equation, that may help: [1][2][3]. You may be able to find more at googlebooks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy of Information

Namaste,

This is Sanjay Raturi from Rishikesh, India.

Does WikiPedia allow us to edit the content which is not correct by its accuracy or numerical data?

There may be so many mistakes in data and I can see them as I am local in Rishikesh.

Kindly allow me to {edit} the knowledge.

Thanks! Sanjay Raturi https://yogainrishikesh.in/

--Yogainrishikesh (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yogainrishikesh, You can edit any page by pressing the edit button at the top. Do you need help with a specific page? WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Appears you made 12 edits to Rishikesh, most/all of which have been reversed. The place to discuss this is at the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires WP:Reliable sources for information that you add. Your own personal knowledge should not be added unless you can confirm it by adding appropriate citations. You should not add your own website. Dbfirs 20:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Drafts

I've contributed to 2 drafts and I was wondering when they would be official pages. The two pages are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GDPC_music_hall_of_fame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Meteorite_(Band) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scurvy G (talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

You haven't submitted them for AFC review. But there's no point in doing so yet, as you have provided no references to published reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subjects. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

veterans organizations

How do I add a veterans organization to the List of Veterans Organizations, currently listed in Wikipedia? Our Military Order celebrated its 100th Anniversary in 2018. It was established by General of the Armies, John J. Pershing, in 1918. The Military Order of the World Wars; www.moww.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1517:4281:C5D3:D8F3:2A34:D567 (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Military Order of the World Wars added to List of veterans' organizations#United_States TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there a good way to notify experienced editors of page that needs help?

Hi,

I'm a relatively new editor and I am still figuring out the ways to improve a Wikipedia article. I have come across some dreadful ones sometimes that I try to fix, but I just cannot completely fix the errors. I was wondering if there is a way to notify an experienced editor of a page that needs a lot of fixing.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik.461 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nik.461: Thanks for helping. The best and easiest way to flag articles for needing edits is to add a cleanup or copy edit template (a.k.a. hatnote) to the top. Here's more info Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#General cleanup. Then people who skim the articles will see that they need to be fixed. This also allows the articles to get attention during the guild of copy editors' editing drives. More info on that here Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Greetings Everyone:

When I looked it up I noticed that a good list is supposed to have an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria and then when I tried to do that another editor said that I was "off topic" and also that I was expressing "personal opinions." He reverted my edit (January 14) and now in retrospect it seems that my way of trying to introduce a subject and a scope had really been clumsy.

I don't know how to talk about the very different programs of editors who would make two different kinds of lists in the same article (in the particular case there seems to be one of them who would do ANYTHING to make a sortable list of answers to everything and the other one would do ANYTHING to sort out the questions) without inviting someone to say that you're off topic and worse yet that everything you say is your opinions and maybe I will come back to that again but right now it occurs to me that the reasons why I bothered to look for any finalities to start with and also why I eventually added things that can never get finished (and such things could eventually get involved with tectonic activity and wherever the hills came from) could be clarified some by posting a landscape painting with some rocks and some trees or maybe a photograph with some plutons in Arizona, for examples, or both.

I don't know how to do that nor whether it is allowed and all of this is about the List of Thermal Conductivities and I would be inclined to maybe post a photograph which I took in Arizona and I couldn't care less about any copyright on it and if I post the landscape painting then it would be my own artwork. It occurs to me that I might want enough of a copyright on that to make my name go with it wherever it goes... maybe.

Can someone tell me whether a right to get credit on the artwork would be practical (its fine with me if everyone wants to copy it and hang it in their living rooms) and may I upload an artwork and or a photograph and post it at the top of the article?

Also I don't yet know how to do that.Patriot1423 (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Patriot1423: I didn't fully understand what you are asking, but have reformatted your question to help others read bits of it more easily. In answer to your later questions, if you upload to Wikimedia Commons a photo you took, you always retain ownership and the right to be credited for it, even though you'll have granted permanent permission for others to re-use that image. i.e. it's a condition of the CC-BY-SA licence that you are credited as the photographer. That said, you should never put the photographer's name in the caption for a photo inserted into a Wikipedia article. By clicking the image, the hyperlink back to Wikimedia Commons is what gives the photographer the credit for that work. Is that what you were asking about? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Nick and the cc-by-sa-4.0 deal is good and I put up a photograph to illustrate the scope of the list. You might have noticed that I had several questions heaped up and I might get back to another one later but right now what would help is if I could post more than one photograph without putting one of them one of them on top of the other. Is that possible? Can I put photographs where I want them?Patriot1423 (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Patriot1423. You can learn more about adding images to articles from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. While an image's copyright status is important, you also should remember that Wikipedia articles are not really intended to be image galleries. Link textual content, you can be bold in adding images; however, another editor can be just as bold in removing them. If such a thing happens, you may need to follow Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle and establish a consensus for adding the images on the article's talk page. Uploading an image to Commons doesn't automatically guarantee that image will be or should be used in a Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly; Yes I noticed that Wikipedia is not an art gallery and that is one of the reasons why I started out with a photograph instead of an artwork. Also I noticed that that is not going to guarantee anything and maybe there are some people who would think that a list of thermal conductivites should have a steam iron instead of some plutons in Arizona. If so then I will look up the link that you mentioned. Thanks for the information and the links.Patriot1423 (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello again Teahouse. thanks for all your help and I just noticed that the List of Thermal Conductivities which lined up in Google Chrome does not line up right in Microsoft Edge. For example the Ice section is out of alignment in Microsoft Edge. Would anyone have any advice on how to get the listed conductivities to line up on every browser? (I don't know the syntax of the table and I only learned how to get things up on it by trial and error).Patriot1423 (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Page Creation

Hi! I would like to ask how many edits would be required for you to create a page on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadon Halen (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi to you! Is the question "how many edits must a user have done before being able to create an article"? If so, the answer is: "you must have an account more than four days old and have done at least 10 edits". If the question is "how many edits to an article does it take to get it created", then the answer is: "uh, one?" I believe an experienced editor could create an article in one shot, that would make it through the new articles review process. --Cornellier (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Different person

Greetings - I think I am doing something wrong when I try to get Help from other Wiki contributors. I post items at my Talk link, with the usual "signature", and then I never hear anything, ever, even after a year or more (see the Seauton Talk, if it is available to logged-in Wiki people). What am I doing wrong? For example, I needed help putting an image into a Hungarian wikipedia page, so I posted a request for help at my Talk page. No response, after months of waiting. I must be doing something wrong. Please help. Thanks (in advance).

Seauton (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Your Talk is for other editors to send you messages, not for you to post questions.David notMD (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Seauton and welcome to the teahouse. You can use the {{Help me}} on your talk page and then add your question. Another way to deal with this is to add {{Request edit}} to the talk page of the article which you wish to add the picture to. In either case you will recieve a reply but it may not be immeadiate as editors and admins are busy around here. One more thing if the article in question is on the "Hungarian Wikipedia" rather than this one you will have to make your request there. The English language WikiP is not involved with other language Wikis. MarnetteD|Talk 02:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Seauton, on Hungarian Wikipedia use {{Segély}} rather than {{Help me}}. —teb728 t c 04:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This was very helpful, and a few other users responded also with helpful suggestions. Thank you.

Seauton (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Repeated citations

Hello,

I am trying to write my first article which is a daunting task. I have been using inline citations but I don't know how to re-reference a citation without adding it to the reference section again. I personally don't like seeing the same item repeated in the reference section but I also don't know how to remove it.

Can anyone give me a quick rundown on how to deal with this?

Thank you! Mellowish126 (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mellowish126: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for citing your sources. Check out WP:REFB, there is a section there on using a reference more than once. And lots of other useful info, too. RudolfRed (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I will check it out and edit appropriately! Mellowish126 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mellowish126: well done - I see that you have got it working just right. The article looks great; good luck with the submission.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

How does a 'draft' article get published?

Hello Teahouse, You certainly have been very helpful to many people. Thank you. I have a question for you. I have recently drafted an article title "Sacred Attention Therapy". How does a 'draft' article become a 'published' article? I have tried to find an article (or articles) on Wikipedia about this subject and I cannot find any. At this early stage it feels like a mystery as to how a draft article becomes published. Any insight and/or experience you can share would be greatly appreciated. --RobMeagherSAT (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RobMeagherSAT. Please read and study Your first article for an excellent overview of how to write an acceptable Wikipedia article, and also read Articles for Creation for information about how to get a draft reviewed. As for your draft, a Wikipedia article should summarize what reliable sources independent of the topic say about the topic. Your draft seems to be based largely on the work of Harvey and people closely associated with his project. Then, you have a few refererences published long before Harvey began his work, which are of no value in establishing the notaby of this topic. In my opinion, your draft needs a complete rewrite before it should be submitted, to focus on summarizing what sources completely independent of Sacred Attention Therapy write about it. That's how Wikipedia works. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Teahouse. Thank you very much for your helpful comments. I appreciate it. I have read 'Your first article' numerous times. The reference to 'Article for Creation' was helpful and provided me with some of the information I was looking for; so thank you! Regarding your sharing about reliable sources in the current draft. Five (5) of the 15 sources are reliable sources that are completely 'independent' of Sacred Attention Therapy. These five (5) sources are not from people close to the topic/project. Eight (8) of the references are from verifiable, reliable sources published by Richard Harvey. Is it okay to have 'some' references to Richard Harvey's work? Or should I remove all of them? Two (2) of the references are to works by author's (yes, long before Richard Harvey began his work) that support something stated in the article. Are they really of no value? I really appreciate your feedback, Teahouse. It has taken me weeks to find someone who is knowledgeable enough and willing to help. --RobMeagherSAT (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, RobMeagherSAT, it is OK to have some references to Primary sources, but they can be used in limited ways, and only a small part of the content of the article should be derived from them. Wikipedia generally isn't interested in what the subject of an article, or people closely involved with the subject, say or want to say about that subject. By far the greater part of any article should be derived from independent sources; and if there are not enough independent sources to ground an article, then by definition, the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
I recommend you read again the policies on NPOV, Verifiability, and PUFFERY before you submit your draft for review. --ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello ColinFine. Thank you for your very helpful comments. Based on your helpful comments, I think I will remove all the references for Richard Harvey, and the two references to authors before Richard Harvey began his work. That will leave me with 5 verifiable resources. In your experience, is 5 verifiable references enough to make it 'notable'? If not, how many are needed? Is there a hard and fast rule for this? Thank you also for the links to the NPOV, Verifiability and PUFFERY articles. I have reviewed those. May I ask you some other questions?--RobMeagherSAT (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The draft was a blatant copyright violation from this pdf and other sources and has been deleted accordingly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

CAPTCHA for citations?

I was told I could ask questions here. I frequently am prompted for a CAPTCHA for including a url in citations. Is this normal? Is there some way I can stop it, I have had to fill out many of these while editing. Shofet tsaddiq (talk)

Hello Shofet tsaddiq and welcome to the Teahouse.
Those confirmations should stop once your account is autoconfirmed, should be some time in the next 24 hours, I think. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
As jmcgnh mentioned, the captcha prompts will no longer appear when your account is four days old and has made 10 edits. Your account was created on 11 February 2019 at 19:59. This is an automatic spam-prevention measure and is normal for very new accounts and unregistered users. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I want to edit a subject

I watched a recent movie- Guardians of the Galaxy- which included a song by the Runaways- "Cherry Bomb". The WIKI article about the song, the band, and writers haven't been updated in a couple of years. I would love to have that updated. I have never edited any WIKI "resource" in my life. But as a movie & music lover this article should be updated. I have no idea how to that. Well- suggestions? Thanks for your help- I feel like an idiot especially after being a fan in WIKI for many years. WIKIPEDIA Lover.

Here's the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_Bomb_(The_Runaways_song) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trehartgrove (talk • contribs) 03:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Trehartgrove. I suggest starting by taking a careful tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. This will teach you the fundamentals of editing. If you have any questions after doing so, please do return here and ask. By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

On Draft

Good day, Teahouse! I have another question on how long will it really take for someone to approve your draft article on Wikipedia. Is it true that it will really take six weeks? That would be pretty long.

Here's the draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Miyuki_Beads and I already submitted it for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadon Halen (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jadon Halen: It might, it might not. The backlog of draft articles is very high, and since the articles aren't reviewed in any specific order it could just as easily be reviewed tomorrow as next month. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Already reviewed and declined. Work on complying with the reviewer's comments before trying again. David notMD (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you know of someone who can help me write article?

Hello Teahouse, I am new to Wikipedia. I am in the process of drafting an article (Draft:Sacred Attention Therapy). My early efforts suggest/indicate I may benefit from having an experienced editor (?) or someone who has published some article/pages (?) help me write the article. I have read many articles on Wikipedia about how to write articles (some were helpful, some were not) and I have received a lot of feedback so far (some helpful, some not). But I think I would benefit most from having someone to work with. Do you know of anyone who would be interested in helping me write the article? Or is there somewhere/someone I can ask if anyone is interested in helping me? --RobMeagherSAT (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)been

You first submitted a draft article on this topic in 2015, so 'new' does not apply. David notMD (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment David notMD. Do you know of anyone who would be interested in helping me write the article? Or is there somewhere/someone I can ask if anyone is interested in helping me?--RobMeagherSAT (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Not me. My point was be honest. Good luck. David notMD (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi RobMeagherSAT. You can try posting a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. You could also check to see if there's WikiProject which deals with the subject you want to write about and asking for assistance on the project's talk page. Just going by the name of the draft and your username, it appears that you might be connected in some way to the subject matter. That doesn't mean that you cannot write an article about this subject, but it does mean that you're going to be expected to do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Since the draft has been deleted per WP:G12 by an adminstrator named Fuhghettaboutit, you might want to review Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and Wikipedia:Notability before attempting to recreate it.
FWIW, one of the main reasons articles are deleted seems to be that the subject doesn't appear to be sufficiently Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written in the first place; in other words, it lacks the significant coverage in independent and secondary reliable sources expected for a Wikipedia article. So, if you can establish that such coverage exists, then someone might be willing to try and write an article; if not, then you're going to have a hard time finding someone to even want to try. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate name, Different Entity

Hi TEAHOUSE!

I'm trying to create a new page for my company, called Artspan. There is already a page called Artspan. How do I go about creating my page without conflicting the existent page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EECCCA (talk • contribs) 23:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to Wikipedia! The existing article is actually ArtSpan (note case). An article Artspan could co-exist with it. Suggest you check this article about creating an article. Please be sure to declare your connection with the subject at hand. --Cornellier (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi EECCCA, You probably should carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) before you do anything else because those things tend to be where most persons trying to write Wikipedia articles about their company seem to have the most problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Drafts

I have two doubts.

i)Someone had started a draft page Draft:Calicut Heroes to which I have contributed as well.Can I submit someone else's draft ?.

ii)A page named Calicut Heroes has already been made in the mainspace.Does the draft have relevance now and still be submitted ?.

Curnews (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Curnews.
i) Techinically you can, but you probably should at least discuss this with the draft's creator first to avoid any unnecessary problems. We don't have any claim of ownership over the Wikipedia pages we create/edit, even over our user pages; however, editors can sometimes become possessive over pages they create. Pages in the draft namespace are there to be worked on by the enitre Wikipedia community, but the creator of the draft might have a certain vision for its development and might wish to receive credit for creating it. So, discussing it with them first seems like a courteous thing to do.
ii) There's really no need to create a draft for an already existing article; instead it would be better to work on improving the existing article instead. If the draft content can be used to improve the existing article, then adding it to the article can be done. Just make sure that you properly attribute the content of the draft when you add it to the article. You can find out more about how to do this in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
-- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually the draft was created first(but not submitted),either the draft or article wasn't created by me.My interest in both is as a wikipedian.My doubt is what should the guy who made the draft do now ?(academic interest).

Curnews (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Curnews: IMHO a proper way of joining the work of all the contributors is Wikipedia:Merging. However I can see important differences between the two pages, e.g. in infoboxes they differ in foundation date (2018 vs. 2019), owner name and colors (blue vs. red and white). Those must be resolved during the merge, or even better prior to merging.
BTW, isn't it too early to write about the team which exists at most one year...? Does it fit Notability requirements? Do there exist any reliable, independent sources writing about the team? --CiaPan (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, It fits notability criteria.Many mainstream media,including newspapers have covered this.They play in the top Volleyball League of India approved by FIVB and organised by Volleyball Federation of India.I feel the relevance is same as a team which plays it's debut season in a top league of any sports.

Curnews (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Then I suggest to use at least some of those many mainstream media for reference. As for now the Draft page links only to the provolleyball.in page... --CiaPan (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Can I make a Wikipedia article a Good Article? Or is it just for administrators?

I would imagine that it's just for admins but I just want to be sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik.461 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nik.461. Good Articles and Featured Articles typically go through a formal review process as explained in Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates before they are granted such status. All editors are welcomed to participate in the reviews, but it's going to be expected that you have a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as well as a sufficient experience in editing/creating articles. It probably also helps to actually have had a few of the articles you've created recognized as being GAs or FAs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nik.461. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being an administrator, nothing at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I've upgraded five articles from C-class to GA. What helps is to look at GA articles for models, pick an article where you know a lot about the topic, work hard to improve it. This likely will take hours of work. When ready, nominate it. You can continue to work while waiting for a reviewer. The reviewer will identify the shortfalls. You just joined. Most of the time editors try to have 1,000 edits experience before essaying a GA. David notMD (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. There is a guide for referencing. Accessdate can be 13 February 2019 but not February 13, 2019. I fixed the Shreeves refs. David notMD (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@David notMD: I'm pretty sure that the month-date-year format is an acceptable one for access dates and is often used; so, not sure where you found that it cannot be used. Could you clarify that? In some cases, MOS:DATEUNIFY and MOS:DATETIES might be an issue, but at the same time changing from month-date-year to date-month-year simply out of personal preference is not always warranted per MOS:DATEVAR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It was the comma. The editor had used "February 13, 2019" David notMD (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The comma is required if using mdy format. I suggest that you read MOS:DATEFORMAT. As it happens, the article in question uses dmy format. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

One keeps on learning. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Add someone's profile

Hey, I am a carrom player . Came 2nd at ICSE national sports and games representing Bihar and Jharkhand. How can I register myself on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigyasu Baranwal (talk • contribs) 16:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jigyasu Baranwal: You have already registered your user account.
As for creating an article, see User:Ian.thomson/Howto. Follow those instructions exactly or the page will be deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Jigyasu Baranwal: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that you have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not social media for people to "register" and tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with in depth coverage state about article subjects that are notable as defined by Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject wants to say about itself, only in what others state about it. Please also read the autobiography policy; writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you truly meet the notability criteria, someone will eventually take note of you and write about you. Also keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. Anything, good and bad, can be in a Wikipedia article as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've often needed to find a wikipedia: page -- help, vandalism reporting, teahouse, whatever -- and found the fastest way I could find it is to just search on google (which is imperfect because I often can't remember the exact title of the page I'm looking for, so I'm sometimes scrolling through a list of results and finding the right one via trial-and-error). Some pages I use often, I bookmark, but my WP bookmarks are getting out of hand. Is there an easier way to find the non-article stuff I need? Thanks for any help! valereee (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried searching WP:whatever or HELP:whatever (on WP)? That sometimes helps, there are plenty of redirects. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I have, and that does sometimes work as well as googling -- but your suggestion makes it occur to me that maybe the solution is for me to make redirects when my own wikipedia:search terms don't take me to the correct page the first time, thanks! I hadn't thought of that. DUH. :) valereee (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
You could just maintain a user subpage with links to the pages you often use. It might take some time to build but then you can easily navigate from there. Regards SoWhy 13:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@SoWhy: good idea, my own little nav tool :) valereee (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not something I use much, but one can search in specific namespaces, like Help and Wikipedia, that may narrow the result.[4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: Almost everyone one of the pages you seem to want to search for will already have shortcuts to them - just look for the little shortcut box at the top right of each page or section. Sometimes there are more than one shortcut for the same page (e.g. WP:VD, WP:VAN, WP:VAND or WP:VANDAL) - so look for the one that you find most memorable; the pages shortcuts will soon stick in your mind. I think the only shortcut I've ever felt the need to create was to go straight to the bottom of this Teahouse page to look for the latest post. Instead of WP:TH, I now use WP:THF. For everything else I've done two things: Firstly, I have a section on my user page to which I add useful page links and other stuff that I regularly want to go to or use (See User:Nick_Moyes#Tools_&_Useful_Pages). Then, much later on, I installed a Page Collector script which functions a bit like a Watchlist, but I only add pages like policies, guidelines, essays and obscure templates that I discover and might want to read in-depth later on. It adds them in sequential order, so I come back later and sort them into relevant subsections - my own personal set of policies and useful pages, as it were. Hope this also helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Oh, the fact there are always multiple versions is also helpful, thanks -- that lets me guess lol. (I suspect you may be a bit younger than I am -- the days when things stuck in my mind from fewer than three repetitions less than a couple days apart are behind me. :D On talk pages I have to hover over shortcuts to remind myself what they mean, even ones I might have hovered over yesterday.) @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: yet another option that I didn't even realized existed! valereee (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: Let's just say that I was in secondary school when the very first pocket calculators appeared on the market, and that I did my ham radio examination based on valve theory, not transistors. And the only reason I'm so good at multitasking is that I forget to finish one job before starting the next. You decide who's the youngest! Nick Moyes (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, hahahahaha let's just say I came of age post-sexual revolution and pre-AIDS. A damn good time to be young. So we might be even :D 18:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Story

Hello everyone I would like to find out if anyone would help me creating my story. I'm new on this, my apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jriosgracia (talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jriosgracia and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not the place to tell your personal story. We only have articles which must be based on published WP:Reliable sources. The best way to write an article is to collect the citations first, then summarise what they say, rather than trying to write "what you know". Dbfirs 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Need help with Arbitration (Don't want to Edit War)

I'm having an issue with another editor on this page: RDF/XML. It started when I noticed a reference that looked to me like a blog article. It turned out to be a dead link but I found it on Wayback and it was a self published blog article and hence not a valid reference for the claim. I deleted the claim and the reference. Another editor added the claim back with a second reference which was also a self published blog. I have issues both with the claim itself (not so much that I don't agree there are serious issues with RDF/XML but I think the claim about "many users choosing other formats" is vague and unencyclopedic. But mainly I think neither of those blog articles, both by people who clearly have an agenda, are good references. The other editor has essentially been ignoring my detailed comments in the Talk page (see the section "Claims at end of Intro" here: Talk:RDF/XML and just insulted me instead. Rather than revert his change yet again (I think that would get to Edit War status) I thought now was the time to bring it to some sort of arbitration. I looked up wp:arbitration but I seem to recall there is something less drastic that people usually try first, something called a request for a 3rd party or something, but I couldn't find that page. Looking for some guidance on how best to deal with this, thanks. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi MadScientistX11. Without having actually looked at the details of the dispute itself mind you, the page you're alluding to is Wikipedia:Third opinion, but see more generally Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which will tell you about that option, and others. Meanwhile, from what you said, it sounds like the most important policy section to know and cite is WP:BURDEN – a subsection of the verifiability policy that provides that any fact in an article may be challenged (for example, by a talk page post) and removed and it may not be returned to an article without the person providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the fact, with the burden to do so being on the proponent of keeping in the disputed fact, and not on the challenger to prove the negative. Here, given your premises, the issue appears to devolve on whether the source being cited is reliable. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Fuhghettaboutit That is what I needed. Nice to hear from you, I used to answer questions here a lot a while ago but then had to cut back due to health issues. Anyway, thanks for the response, that was just what I was looking for. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Without having actually looked at the details of the dispute itself Don't you think that might have been useful?
Here's the ref itself: Tennison, Jeni (15 August 2007). "Things that make me scream: RDF "QNames"". Note the bluelink to the author's name. Note the OBE after her name, for services to this subject. Yes, it's a blog post. But it's also a blog post by someone who meets Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources exactly as described. But hey, MadScientist has used Protege a bit, so they're definitely the expert on all this.
Maybe we could ask Aaron, another one who was there at the outset of this? – but WP has hatcheted that article so that it now only resembles the Hollywood version of the story. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
No, there was no need. I addressed my post the the premises as given. Having now looked at the page, I would leave exactly the same post.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft

How do I submit a draft to the AFC review?

The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Meteorite_(Band) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scurvy G (talk • contribs) 22:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

BandLab, YouTube and the band's own website are not acceptable as references, so you still have no references. The fact that their record label has established its own 'Hall of Fame' does not make Meteorite notable by Wikipedia's standards. What is needed is independent, published articles about the band. David notMD (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Article with "extra" categories

Greetings, While doing category additions to articles I found Jeevanadi and am curious where are the two extra categories coming from? I added 20th-century films category. Unable to see/find category 1970 films and Tamil-language films. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi JoeHebda. They are added automatically by this:
{{Infobox film
| released       = {{Film date|df=yes|1970|1|14}}
| language       = Tamil
}}
{{Film date}} adds 1970 films by itself. {{Infobox film}} adds Tamil-language films. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: - Thanks for 'splaining about these templates. I did not know they had that kind of functionality. Always enjoy learning something new on Wikipedia. Cheers! JoeHebda (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_906&oldid=1042682238"