Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 998

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 995Archive 996Archive 997Archive 998Archive 999Archive 1000→Archive 1005

New Article - consensus to merge

I wrote a new article and the consensus is to merge it to another article. Should I do this merge or does it need to be done by a Wikipedia administrator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheeka19 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Article created:Environmental job AfD Decision to merge to: Green job
Hello, Cheeka19 and welcome to the Teahouse. First off, it's a good article - well done. I do agree that the term itself isn't really notable (not that I've ever heard the term "Green job" used either, despite having worked in that field. No, it doesn't require an adminstrator to merge content into another article. In fact, if you don't do it, it's likely to sit there untouched for some time. (I think admins would only be needed if edit histories needed to be merged so as to retain edit attribution. I think you'll need to restructure the Green job article and rewrite the lead. The article you created is very differnet content from that in Green job, so it'll be a fairly easy case of copy/pasting in content into new sections. Once done, your page can be turned into a WP:REDIRECT so that anyone searching on 'Environmental job' can find the main article. (Finally, as a light-hearted aside, I was irked to see you hadn't included my job role in your article. I was a 'Biodiversity Officer' for six years, writing and encouraging the delivery of local Biodiversity Action Plans. From my perspective, that was pretty notable work to help save the planet!) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Nick Moyes Thanks for the welcome and feedback and thanks a million for your help. I'm sorry I didn't include Biodiversity Officer ;-) It's such a vast area! I will add to the article as I go and will include this in the future. I agree, Green job isn't a term used widely here in Australia either. I think it is mainly used in the United States. Thanks for letting me know I should do the merger. Do you have any suggestions at all about restructuring and rewriting the lead at all? I am so new here I want to get a good reputation and want to ensure I don't upset anyone with my restructuring and rewriting the lead. Any input from you would be VERY welcome. Regards from Australia Cheeka19
Hey, Cheeka19, sorry for the delay in replying. I'm not able to get to a keyboard very much these days, so have to wait to compose the more complex replies which I can't do on a mobile. First off, please don't add my old job title to your article. You are quite right - there are innumerable variants. Mine (and others) should only be included if there are sufficient reliable sources that talk about them independently.
To answer your question, what I'd do (off-wiki) is look at the Contents section of Green job and pencil where I might create new sections for the contents from Environmental job. (Did you know you can download and print a PDF of any article to work on?ge See link on left side of article page) I would create a new section corresponding to the 'By country' header and insert a 'By function' section (or its equivalent, such as 'By role'). I'd add just the most well-referenced subsections first. Then I'd look at the lead section and decide what needed to be inserted or changed there to better explain the article's expanded contents better. As you're in Australia, you're well positioned to enhanced the 'By country' section, too. I suggest this should be based on national/government/state careers or employment documents if possible. I do feel that your article was a little too much like a careers guide, so I'd not include (at least at this stage) things like Electric Car Engineer. I would also look for corresponding articles which you could wikilink to or add a 'see Main article' link. (See Ecology article for an exmaple of how these links are deployed right under sub-headings.)
I'm really excited to see your particular interests in editing on environmental matters. But can I give you a few 'words of wisdom' that may help you avoid difficulties? First off, please don't draft articles directly within your userpage. That is there for you to say a few words about yourself and your editing interests. (Avoid revealing personal information, however) So, either work on an article in your sandbox (and you can have many of them - such as User:Cheeka19/sandbox, User:Cheeka19/sandbox1, User:Cheeka19/sandbox2 etc.) Or you could create a draft article via the Articles for Creation wizard. I'd suggest you delete what's currently there on your userpage as soon as possible and replace it with a few word out yourself (rough geographic location, job interests or qualifications/educational status, hobbies and interests relevant to editing here).
Secondly, it can be demoralising to charge straight in try creating a new article (( one of the hardest challenges here), only to have some old spoil-sport put it up for deletion, or to drop by your user talk page with some warning or other about what you're doing wrong. I am well aware how discouraging that can be so, like learning to surf, get over the first few waves and falls without giving up, and you'll be well on your way to learning to become a great editor. Don't ever be discouraged by that, though do listen to what other experienced editors suggest. Making smaller edits to existing related topics is a great way to discover things you fancy working on, whilst fixing smaller issues. Did you know that every article should have one of more 'Categories' added at the bottom of the page? These are essential to aggregate related topics, but are also brilliant for finding those related articles. I often use my userpage to list pages I'm interested in working on in the future - almost as a notepad of things to do.
Finally, although my time to give detailed help or appraisals is currently a bit limited (and I'll undoubtedly take ages to respond), do feel free to drop by my talk page if you ever want input on environmental topics you're working on that maybe don't seem quite so appropriate to raise here at the Teahouse. Good luck, and all the very best from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Nick Moyes A BIG thank you - I've done most of the changes advised - just a bit more improving to do so its less like a careers article. Thanks a million from Cheeka19 (talk)

Is it considered an extrenal link if the link is going to another wikipedia site. For example, if there is a page about a topic that has a broken link on ambiguous is it acceptable to use a es.wikipedia link, if the resluting link is on topic. Seeing if the page does not exist on the originating language version of wikipeda?

I bring up the question because under dos and don'ts, it says not to include extrenal links on this page.

However, is a link considered extrneal when it strictly uses

[https:// a_link]

or only when the page leaves the wikipedia.org domain?

Seamus M. Slack (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, Seamus M. Slack, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, External links should not include any links to any language version of Wikipedia. These should always be used within the main article contents. Either use normal wikilinks between two square brackets to link to other pages on English Wikipedia, or use the 'interlanguage link' template to link create a redlink to a non-existent article on English Wikipedia along with a small blue link to a non-English Wikipedia. The template you use is this one: {{ill}}. So, for lovers of alpine flowers, there is currently no article on English Wikipedia about the Pyrenean buttercup (Ranunculus pyrenaeus L.), but there are on both French and German wikis, and seven other wikis. To create a link to it, you'd type ''{{illm|Ranunculus pyrenaeus|de|Pyrenäen-Hahnenfuß}}'' to create this link: Ranunculus pyrenaeus [de] Note the redlink to English Wikipedia, but the small, functional blue link to German wikipedia, which uses the plant's German common name, not its scientific one. Does that answer your question? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I do feel welcomed. I didn't know about {{ill}}. Thanks and yes my question is answered. Seamus M. Slack (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

New Living Person Page Created

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Helen_Ramsaran

Hello I just published the following page, when will it be live? Or if there are any additional edits or steps i need to take elsewhere on wiki for this page to be live for other people to offer their edits?

Moshimena (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Moshimena Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If by "live" you mean it would be formally part of the encyclopedia, you would first need to submit it for review. Currently your article (not just "page") is just a draft. I will shortly add the appropriate information to allow you to submit it for review. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!Moshimena (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Citing a mobile app

I have an iOS app published by the Boston Society of Architects/AIA but I'm not sure which template I should use to cite it. Right now I've cited in on the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds article, but would like to use it more. Any suggestions? Thanks! --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, I think {{Citation}} is the generic citation template for citing any and everything, and others are more specific versions of it. So, whenever in doubt, I use that one. I'm also intrigued by the idea of citing a mobile app. Is this a reputed society that's putting their own research on apps; research that's not published any other way? The app might itself be using some other more traditional types of reliable sources, and if that is the case, it would perhaps if better to cite those sources instead. Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 03:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

How to move a page in the desktop version in Wikipedia on a phone

How can I move a page in the desktop version of Wikipedia in a phone? Real example: KTSB-CA should be moved to a redirect to KTSB-CD.CentralTime301 (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@CentralTime301: Its actually the same as on a desktop computer, see Help:Move. However, I suggest that you use a responsive skin like monobook or timeless, vector (the default) is sometimes a bit buggy. 2001:16B8:50F9:1600:EC2D:6E8D:EED4:E45F (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Page not published

Hello wikites!

I tried to write my first Wikipedia entry about an economist who is in the business since more than 25 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ElZorroK The links I put on the article to show this persons career and standing in the economic community. I want a many aspiring young economist to find him and use his research material in resolving the issues around many economies around the world. I'd very much appreciate if one of you could help me. There is no doubt, he deserves a Wikipedia entry. Many thanks and best wishes. ElZorroK ElZorroK (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello ElZorroK, and welcome to the Teahouse! The relevant "rule" here is WP:NACADEMIC. If you conclude that your guy "has" that and that you can show it with WP:RS, there is some more you need to do. Your article needs inline citations, see Help:Referencing for beginners. When you are done with that, see Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft#Ready!. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Your User page is the wrong place to draft an article (a very common error). Consider moving the content to Article wizard. As GGS mentioned already, needs referencing, and the references need to be to published content about Kevin Fox, not by him. Lastly, a Wikipedia article is not a CV. Listing memberships and the subject's publications do not contribute to the purpose of the article. David notMD (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Heard about a company from a friend, found a wiki draft page. Need help from experienced editor friends

Hi guys,

Need help getting a company draft page to life, its a notable company that has been in business for past 25 years nearly. Its privately held and hence much of its revenue info isnt shared.

Can somebody help me with what all may be required for it ?


-- volcanicsnow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volcanicsnow (talk • contribs) 10:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned on this user's talk page, they are being asked to violate WP:MEAT, WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO and should not do this. --Yamla (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Courtesy: draft in question is Draft:Fiorano Software. David notMD (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I am not as sure as Yamla is that MEAT, or PAID apply. Perhaps COI if the friend is the person who created the draft article in question. David notMD (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
What would also apply in the latter situation would be the prohibition of PROXYING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 11:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Moot, as the major (original?) author of the draft has now requested speedy deletion. David notMD (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Maintaining column width in Tables

Can you tell me how to maintain or restrict column width in Tables without manual breaks? Thanks.Trouver (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Trouver, and welcome to the Teahouse. You didn't link to any particular article or table which you want to modify, or were having problems with, so may I just refer you to HELP:TABLES and, in particular, the subsection on setting column widths (see here)? I do hope thie guidance there helps resolve any editing issues you had. If not, come back and let us know exactly what problem you're having difficulty resolving. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to you, Nick, I think I've solved the problem. Below is the link in case you'd like to check it out. It's about Ken Kimmelman, a filmmaker and the tables were for his films. But then I got a tag saying the lead section was too long, so I shortened it. According to the guidelines it seems OK to me now. Do you have the authority to remove the tag? Also I'd welcome any comments. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Kimmelman&editintro=Template%3ABLP_editintro
Thanks again.Trouver (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome, Trouver. The table looks ok on my tiny phone screen in desktop view. If an editor thinks they've adressed an issue raise in a template at the top of a page, they're free to remove it tgenselves. (It still looks a bit too long and overly detailed, if I'm frank with you, but others might differ. No need to 'bust a gut' on my sayso - it's just my opinion.) Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Disassociation with my email

I would like to remove my email from my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arustiy89 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The option to be able to do that is available at Special:Preferences, but please read the warning about the consequences. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Echoing David's comment. You can turn off email alerts, but just keep it for password recovery. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.). TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 15:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

edit a locked Wikipedia page

How to edit a locked Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri Munda (talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I can give you more details if you tell me what color the lock is, but generally, locked pages can only be edited by editors that meet certain criterias. Please take a look at WP:Protection policy. Thank you. William2001(talk) 16:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the block (or whatever) is pink, but on a more careful look (my forst response was WTF?) I discovered:
Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you). Which I do not want to do
Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page. Which is what I plan on doing, thanks, Carptrash (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

How do I create a link to an article in the real world?

A wikifriend recently sent me link to an article were I (“wikipedia editor Carptrash”) was mentioned and I’d like to put a link to it on my user page. Sounds doable, but here is the rub. The reference, which was not intended to be complimentary, is in Breitbart News and when I attempted to make the link I discovered that Breitbart is on a banned (or something) list and links to it on wikipedia can not be made. SO how can I circumvent this probably good regulation? Carptrash (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You've to request for the specific link to be whitelisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. I am not sure what criteria they use in determining what to whitelist and what not. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Upload an article

Hi I want to ask about how to make an article about person and make it visible/noticable(found)when search about it on google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obada Katatbeh (talk • contribs) 18:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Obada Katatbeh: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. This is an encyclopedia and not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Per our policy on autobiographies written at WP:AUTO, autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. While they are not forbidden, in order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent reliable sources with significant coverage(not press releases, interviews, or brief mentions) write about you. The vast majority of people cannot do this, as we all naturally write favorably about ourselves. If you have reviewed Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person(or the more specific criteria for certain careers) and truly feel that you meet the criteria, you should allow others to write about you.
Wikipedia has no control over Google search results, but generally articles are searchable once formally marked as reviewed; it then takes Google and other search engines time to index pages. Wikipedia also has no interest in helping your career or enhancing search results for you. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Coloured

Hi there,how do you have a coloured background user page? And also how do you make an online bot? Thanks--RazorTheDJ (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Colored background: <div style="background-color:#abcdef"> my Content </div> renders as
my Content
For help see CSS. 2001:16B8:50F9:1600:ACAB:61DB:EF2C:A728 (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
​As for bots, see Help:Bots. Eman235/talk 20:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

About the Wikipedia:WikiProject Requested articles

Dear Fellow wikipedians, I wanted to be a member of this wikiproject, when i realized that it was inactive and tagged it as such. I saw that i can revive it. I have read the instructions to do that, but i have became a little puzzled. I would kindly ask someone to explain it with a little simpler words, and to ask my basic question: If i must, how can i become the <<leader>> of the wikiproject to revive it? (the policy didn't said something about that, i generally ask) I await your reply, Eni vak (speak) 21:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with using a photo from Hebrew Wiki - to use in English Wiki

There is a photo in the Hebrew Wikipedia article of Rabbi Yechezkel Sarna whichI'd like to include in the English Wiki article. Various unsaved experiments didn't work. Is it because of the photo not being in a "commons" area but rather in a language-specific .jpg collection?

Photo from Hebrew Wiki: https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=iw&sp=nmt4&u=https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25D7%25A7%25D7%2595%25D7%2591%25D7%25A5:Yechezkel_Sarna.jpg&xid=25657,15700021,15700186,15700190,15700256,15700259,15700262,15700265&usg=ALkJrhjpNdBjR9nKDAXAMk3zbkB7QKp0tg Pi314m (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCI 10, that foto should be ok to use. How to technically do that, I don't know. Marchjuly? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but ... it's the "How" that was the basis of my Help request. Sorry to seem like I'm double-dipping or asking for cake at the teahouse: Is this the right place, or should I repost my help request elsewhere Pi314m (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Pi314m: I don't know if you can link across the different language Wikipedias. I think if you right click to download it to your computer, and then upload it to commons with the upload wizard, and include in the permissions that it's a photo of a deceased person, you'll get a link that works. You could also include the link to the original file in the notes, and if there are any problems, someone in OTRS will help you straighten it out. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 15:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Timtempleton, the linked page states that the image is copyrighted, that makes Commons the wrong place by default, or am I wrong? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I don't think you're wrong per se. When someone uploads a file to Commons under a license such as Creative Commons, they are not really transferring their copyright ownership to Commons or anyone else; they are really just making a version of their work freely available for others to more easily use. Basically, they have created a boilerplate agreement allowing reuse of their work under certain terms for anyone who currently wants to or might someday want to use their work that makes individual agreements with each such person unnecessary. So, Commons does host copyrighted content, but only when it's been released by the copyright holder under a free license that Commons it accepts. The default in cases where a file's licensing cannot be verified is to deleted per c:Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Pi314m. Files like the one uploaded to Hebrew Wikipedia are local files, whereas files uploaded to Commons are global files. So, if you want to use a file uploaded locally to Hebrew Wikipedia on English Wikipedia, you will have to one of two things: upload the file to Commons or upload the file to English Wikipedia. Since Commons does not accept fair use files, you should only upload the file to Commons if your reasonably sure that it meets c:Commons:Licensing. Commons will accept copyrighted files, but only when it can be verified that the copyright holder has agreed to release the file under an acceptable free license; technically, the copyright holder is relinquishing their copyright ownership over the file but rather simply making a version of the file freely available for others to use. If you've got any specific questions about this, you can ask for help at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Now, if you don't think there's a way for the file to be uploaded to Commons, then it might be possible to upload the file locally to Wikipedia as non-free content. There are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied, but copyrighted files of deceased individuals are allowed to be uploaded and used per item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as their use complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Generally, such a file should be OK to use as long as (1) there's no reasonable expectation that a free equivalent image (it doesn't have to be the same image; just equivalent enough to serve the same encyclopedic purpose) can either be found or created (WP:NFCC#1), and (2) the image is going to be used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone Wikipedia article about the person-in-question. Other types of non-free use are not impossible to justify, but they do tend to be much harder to justify. If you've got any more questions about this, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Native American or American Indian

The Navajo, Apache, Mohican, Dakota, Lakota,Obijwe and all other peoples who were residing on this continent when Europeans arrived refer to themselves as native Americans, except in Canada where they are referred to as First Peoples. Yet I encounter references to them as American Indians, which is incorrect in so many ways, and stems from the mistake of Christoper Columbus in assuming that he had reached islands off the Indian subcontinent. So which is correct the native American self designation (actually Original Peoples would be more accurate) or the misnomer "American Indian". If questions like this should be asked elsewhere's then where should I ask themOldperson (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Oldperson. Your question does not seem to pertain to the purpose of the Teahouse. We are here to discuss making Wikipedia better. Would you like to ask at the WP:Reference desk? It is populated by people who enjoy answering every sort of question.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, "First People" is not really correct either, because the pre-European people of the Americas were not the first people in the world. The first Homo sapiens emerged in Africa, as best we can tell, around two hundred thousand to three hundred thousand years ago. People migrated around the world from there. Slowmusketeer —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Slowmusketeer:Tomato tomahto. I mispoke, I am not Canadian, however checking Isee that they are referred to in Canada as Fist Nation. The designation is Canadian specific and political, so please no dickering about which was the "First Nation" in the world. That is a path we do not need to go down and is unproductive.Oldperson (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: You might want to search for discussions in the "Wikipedia talk" namespace (e.g. here) for previous discussions on the subject. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Size of caption in infobox

Recently I have seen edits that changed captions in several infoboxes in biographies from "John Smith" to "<span style="font-size:93%">John Smith</span>". Is reducing the size of the caption advantageous? Should I begin applying this technique when I create infoboxes with images of individuals? Eddie Blick (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Teblick. It might have been helpful had you supplied some example links, lest we could see some special need for this. (Very long caption text, or an orphan word) I would advise against trying this. You can find guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, which explicitly advises against using special formatting. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, thanks for your reply. Yes, I should have linked to a specific example. This change was the one that spurred me to post the question. I have noticed several similar changes in other articles in my watchlist in the last couple of weeks. I couldn't see that the reduction helped in any way, but I wanted to check with others who are more experienced. Eddie Blick (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Such formatting is discouraged, since whatever it is intending to do may only work for the specific screen size and resolution, "skin", custom fonts/padding/bolding, etc. that the editing user employs. It may result in problems for many other users. Best to let the stylesheets and browser do their job. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

New Subject Entry

Hello Editors.

I have been drafting an entry about a fashion designer that is currently not included in Wikipedia.

Where do I post my proposed subject to gain approval and have a review of references and content of an article?

Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by EMETIB MAILLIW (talk • contribs) 05:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, EMETIB MAILLIW! If this is your first article, or you are very new to Wikipedia, it's a good idea to start with the Article Wizard. Chetsford (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The red error messages in your references in User:EMETIB MAILLIW/sandbox usually have a "help" link in blue. In each case this will give you a wikilink to specific help on each type of error. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

David- I am such a novice, but under the advisement of Wiki mentors like you and Chetsford are proving handy. I am not sure what you can see in my sandbox, but formatting the references or further advisement would be welcome. Thank you! EM EMETIB MAILLIW (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners for fixing references. David notMD (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@EMETIB MAILLIW: Also see Help:Your first article for more general help. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 15:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: and @Timtempleton: Really appreciate your guidance and affirmation. If you can see my sandbox- Does it appear as if I am moving in the right direction for a first entry? The citations are there, but realize they require proper fixing! Thanks. EM EMETIB MAILLIW (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Needs to be shorter, especially mention of info not about her. And learn how to ref. David notMD (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with revising a draft needed

Hello Experts

I tried - putting a lot of work into it - to write my first Wikipedia entry about an artist who is in the business since more than 20 years. I submitted the article and got the following feedback: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." Certainly nothing unusual for more experienced people like you. The links I put on the article to show this artists international career were for example newspaper reviews. I'm afraid I don't understand what isn't "significant, reliable, secondary source and independent about this. It might also just be, that I haven't technically understood how to submit references with "ref", all I placed were links. I'd very much appreciate if one of you could help me with a contact who knows how to do this. There is no doubt, this artist deserves a Wikipedia entry. Many thanks and best wishes, --Fmkaiser (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmkaiser (talk • contribs) 19:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fmkaiser and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't looked at all of your eighteen references, but can you point us to two or three that are independent (not interviews or publicity) and discuss the subject in detail? Dbfirs 19:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dbfirs! Thanks for your fast reply. Sorry if my question is "stupid", but how can I point you to links here? Of course I'm happy to send you some links to international newspaper reviews, that aren't interviews nor publicity, but reviews of the artists performance and therefore independent. And I'm happy to discuss how I can revise the article so things get in the right way.

Fmkaiser (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Just tell us which numbers in your draft. If you can find better references, then add those first because the numbers will change. Dbfirs 20:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
ok, take a look at 1, 3, 5, 7, or 13, 14 etc.

Fmkaiser (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave it to someone who can read German to check 1, 3 and 5, but they look like brief mentions to me. Number 7 is just a brief mention. 13 and 14 are better but are about her performances. Can you find places where she is discussed at length? Dbfirs 21:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
References 1, 3 and 5 are all about her performances too. Maybe a somewhere between 7 and 13/14 though. Sorry, Gehenna1510 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The artist is on stage since more than 20 years. Parts of her career don't happen online, but in print media, which I can't access. Interviews are not allowed, reference 11 might therefore be tricky, although it says more. If you could compare my draft with the Wikipedia article about Paula Murrihy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Murrihy), can you please explain me what the difference of references is? Or differently asked, why did the article about Paula Murrihy get approval while my draft isn't? Thanks a lot, really appreciate your help and input! --Fmkaiser (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Fmkaiser The Oper Frankfurt link for example had more about Murrihy than just a critique about her performance. The Scottish Symphony Orchestra article possibly even more (This one is not in the webarchive). You can add offline sources with the {{cite news}} template. It would like this (the parts behind the = is what you provide) <ref>{{cite news|last=last name of the aricles author|first=first name of the articles author|title=title of the article|date=publishing date of the article|newspaper=the newspaper/magazine where the article is found}}</ref> you can add more parameters like volume=, issue= or page= if you know them. Sources needs to be published, but they do not need to be available online, as long as you provide the necessary informations interested people need to get them. Gehenna1510 (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Gehenna1510 for your input. I will look further into it on the weekend when I have more time. Will get back once I have found more.

--Fmkaiser (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A cursory Google search showed some coverage by reliable sources so try to find articles like the Telegraph source you used. Also, you can provide a more detailed format for the Reference list. You can do this by clicking the Cite button when you are editing the draft using the Visual Editing interface. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

How to Delay Publication?

Is there a way to have a draft article "pre-reviewed" but delay the publication until later?.

The reason I ask is Iʻm working on a new article on a well-known historical site based on many years of primary source research that is about to be made public. I want the Wiki article to come out after the new info comes out... but I donʻt want to wait for months for review or debates with editors (which I have heard do occur).

Suggestions welcome! - Dean Hamer, PhD

PS- It would help to know the typical wait time for an article to be reviewed. If itʻs super-long, I could just submit right now.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean Hamer PhD (talk • contribs) 22:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dean Hamer PhD. I can't quite work out what you're trying to do, but I cannot think of any rationale for this request that is consistent with what Wikipedia is. If you want to submit a draft for review, submit it; if you don't, don't. If you care about when an article is published, you are almost certainly working on it for the benefit of somebody or something other than Wikipedia: please don't do that. I cannot see how "a new article based on many years of primary source research" can have any relevance to a Wikipedia article you are writing: citing your own articles is regarded as editing with a conflict of interest; and putting anything in it which has been published only in your own article would be original research and not acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
To Colin's reply I would add the reminder that a Wikipedia article needs to be based on secondary sources, rather than the primary sources which you mention in your question. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Dean Hamer PhD: If many years of primary source research that is about to be made public means that you will be referencing those unpublished (yet) sources in your article, that will be a problem, since it will not be verifiable yet. The Wikipedia article needs to be reviewed after any sources it references are available for verification. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

what does it mean when in someones user Box it has the green dot in it and says helped promote the article to good status?

Just was wondering in the process of contributing to a page to make it one. Just did not get the wording for that still a bit new Jack90s15 (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure exactly which userbox you have in mind, but quite a number of those listed at WP:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Personal statistics refer to promoting to good article status. At least some of those link to WP:Good articles which explains the process. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Jack90s15. Certain Wikipedia articles have underdone a kind of optional formal peer review which has resulted in them being assessed as Wikipedia:Good articles or Wikipedia:Featured articles; so, the userbox you saw belongs to someone who either created such an article or who worked on improving it to help it become such an article. GA's and FA's are normally considered to be good examples of what every Wikipedia article should strive to be, but there are still quite a number of articles which are quite good which haven't undergone such a review process; in fact, most articles tend to be more informally reviewed as explained in Wikipedia:Content assessment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok I get it now thanks!!! @David Biddulph: @Marchjuly: Jack90s15 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

PHP7

Editors are making changes all over the place with nothing in the Edit summary except the preceding mysterious word, or phrase, or something. When I click on it, I am taken to an equally mysterious page. What does it mean, and why don't editors explain exactly what they are doing? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It's the new software which is gradually being brought on-line (and should be fully rolled out by the end of the year). The software runs only at the WMF end and you shouldn't notice any difference; at the moment edits on the new interface are being tagged so if there's any bug, the developers can see if they're connected to the switch from HHVM to PHP7 or not. Once the rollout is complete and HHVM is no longer being used anywhere I assume the tag will be switched off. TL;DR version; this tag is only for the developers to keep note and you can completely ignore it. ‑ Iridescent 18:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Some editors don't bother with an edit summary, and they can be reminded, such as with {{Uw-editsummary}}. Separately, the automatic PHP7 tag flagged by the Wikimedia software is explained at mw:Beta_Features/PHP7 (and the links from it), but can be ignored except by the software developers. Note that the PHP7 tag can apply to edits either with or without an edit summary. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but that doesn't explain why editors don't say in an Edit summary exactly what they are doing with this new software. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not something that the user is doing. You'll see that mw:Talk:Beta Features/PHP7 says that "10% of all traffic is currently being randomly assigned to the PHP7 testing servers. The tag will show up on any edits made from servers running php7 to help us track issues that may ultimately be related to the php7 software. This isn't anything that a particular editor should be concerned about." As I explained (and I trust that someone will correct me if I'm wrong), what a user puts (or doesn't put) in an edit summary is entirely independent of whether the server uses PHP7 and adds the PHP7 flag to help the software developers in their performance studies. - David Biddulph (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Canadian TV talent show "Take a Bow"

Wanting info on a Canadian TV show called "Take a Bow" I believe it was in 1965 or 1966. Looking for info on winners, and if video exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.217.29 (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

We help with how to questions on editing Wikipedia here. You probably should take this to the reference desk. John from Idegon (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Grammar bots

I see a problem with bots that are programed to go around correcting grammar all across Wikipedia. For example, let's say the bots don't like sentences to end with prepositions, or they don't like the Oxford comma. I've seen changes made that some experts would agree with, and some would not. There are plenty of situations in English usage that are not "settled law", and which the language in it's usual way, may eventually deal with. The English language has evolved naturally over time. That should be allowed. Instead, now machines exist, bots, that can manipulate the language wholesale in a way that can subvert and eliminate the language's ability to evolve naturally. If Wikipedia had existed (with its "Grammar Nazi" bots) in the time of Old English or Middle English, then the rest of the world would be conversing in modern English and Wikipedia would be full of a lot of strange quirks and spellings like "ye" and "thine", etc. My question is that if an editor wanted to discuss this, and object to what's going on -- how or where would that discussion take place? - Quarterpinion (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

This is the first I have heard of such grammar bots. Do you know the names of any of them? A bot should have a Talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed; I am not aware of any "grammar bots". As noted by Quisqualis, every bot has a talk page that its operator follows. It sounds to me, though, that your issue seems to be with certain style concerns; probably the talk page of the Manual of Style would be a good place to start. Please note that Wikipedia does not prefer any particular national style of English. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I looked at some recent pages edited by Quarterpinion, and my best guess is, they were thrown off by the username "Giraffedata". Giraffedata has indeed declared a war on technically incorrect (but fairly common, even accepted if I'm not mistaken) usage/s of the word "comprise", but they are not a bot as far as I know, despite the username. Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 02:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all, I appear to be mistaken—the phenomenon, which I do think is troubling and needs to be considered, may be due to actual individual humans operating Wikipedia's search tools in order to have a mass influence on the language all across the encyclopedia. Usedtobecool cites a good example. It's the principle that I wanted to address. I will withdraw this and think about it. Thanks, very much.Quarterpinion (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I’ll take 331dot’s suggestion and start with the style page that was referred to above. Individuals who manipulate the way English is used on Wikipedia in a wholesale manner, may not be “bots”, but they use Wikipedia’s search engines, and other devices and gadgets of Wikipedia. The “wholesale” manner of editing is “bot-like”, and the things we call a “bots” do have humans pushing their buttons. The result is that Wikipedia can program its engines to control the language with little thought or consideration — robotically. How the language is affected by our devices, as a principle, should be considered. Wikipedia is a thing built out of language (and also engines). Thanks again. - Quarterpinion (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Quarterpinion: Wikipedia has a right to have its articles conform to its house style, which (like everything else here) is the result of consensus; some editors correctly spend their time enforcing that. Take note of MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN. Some, including me, will edit to make an article correct and self-consistent, usually in the process of editing it for some other reason in my case; as long as you have it open and are fixing something, it's hard to ignore date format, WP:ENGVAR, comma, MOS:DASH, etc. problems, so we fix them per those policies. Others, as you've said, go around looking for making solely those kinds of edits, sometime unnecessarily, but sometimes technically correctly according to the guidelines. Reverting such edits wholesale without attempting to discuss it first (maybe at WT:MOS) can be seen as just as wrong as the original edits, even if they were wrong to begin with. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@AlanM1:, my concern doesn’t have to do specifically with conforming to the house style, or the MOS, except in the general way. I think its a question of how Wikipedia uses and relates to the English language — whether it’s thoughtfully or not — and do we allow the English language to evolve freely as it has, by consensus actually, for centuries. Can we edit thoughtlessly like robots on an assembly-line? Click, click, click? Yes, we can. Hundreds of edits can be made in a few minutes without much thought — by using devices on Wikipedia that were certainly not intended to contribute thoughtlessness. In this wholesale, robotic way, we can manipulate the language as with a shoe-horn or like “Whack-a-mole”, and we can treat the language in a demeaning way — as something not to exist with its usual freedom, but something to be manipulated grossly. But should we? - Quarterpinion (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Dutch 20th century musicians

This page includes politicians, and does NOT include thousands of professional Dutch musicians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:20th-century_Dutch_musicians

But, go ahead, like the rest of my wiki work, delete it all. have fun spreading mis-information! Basvossen (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Bas

The article Hans Dijkstal, about a Dutch politician, somehow was placed in two musician categories. I removed those two categories from the article.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

want to create a page for actor Rhian Rees

How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallowean (talk • contribs) 03:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You can use the article wizard to create the page. However, the person must be notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 03:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

NPP vs AfC

What is the difference between Wikipedia:New pages patrol and being a new page reviewer, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation and being an AfC reviewer. {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 21:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Waddie96, New Page Patrol is a patrol of articles in mainspace, AfC reviewing is checking articles in draftspace. NPP generally involves tagging pages for speedy deletion, PRODing, and draftifying. AfC spots articles ready for mainspace, and promotes them (it rarely involves deletion). The skill sets do overlap quite significantly, though. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Erm, dont forget that New Page Patrol also involves approving many reasonable articles added directly to mainspace - not just deleting them! Note that once a draft article has gone thru the Articles for Creation review process and moved to mainspace, it still has to be NPP patrolled before we allow Google to index that new page. Both processes allow the respective reviewer to leave feedback for the creating editor. Its wrong to suggest that AfC reviewers spot draft articles that are ready for mainspace. Nothing happens until the creating editor is happy with their draft and actively submits it for review. Thats quite an important point worth clarifying. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Bellezzasolo and Nick Moyes!{{u|waddie96}} {talk} 06:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_998&oldid=911640101"