Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 372

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 365 ← Archive 370 Archive 371 Archive 372 Archive 373 Archive 374 Archive 375

Publishing first story

Hi there,

I've uploaded my first piece to wikipedia but when I use the search bar I don't find it. Haven't been able to move it to main content yet, so the title is still my username.

Signed up on Monday, so must I just wait or is there something else that I need to do to make the piece more visible/searchable?

thank you. Jebblz (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jebblz, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suspect you are talking about the article you have tried to create on your user page User:Jebblz. I have moved it to Draft:Walter Baetz, as this is a better place for a draft article. Your user page is for you to post a little information about you as a Wikipedia editor, if you choose. Don't worry too much about searching for things you create: you can always find your contributions by the "Contributions" link at the top of the page.
Please read referencing for beginners about how we do references in Wikipedia articles: you don't need to number them yourself, you just put all the bibliographic data (title, author, date etc as well as URL) between <ref> and </ref>, and the software will format them, number them, and insert the footnote tags. Please note that almost all the information in an article, especially one on a living person, must be cited to reliable published sources independent of the subject. You will probably find the information in your first article useful as well. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Colin.

That makes so much more sense. One thing though: You've changed the surname in Draft from Baets to Baetz... Could you please remedy that, or explain to me how?

Really appreciate this...Jebblz (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jebblz: I've fixed this for you. Moving a page requires an autoconfirmed account (one with 10 edits and 4 days since registering), so you wouldn't have had the technical ability to fix the title yet. But for future reference (when you reach autoconfirmed) there should be a "More" button at the top-right of your screen (next to Read, Edit, View history), and when you hover over it you can click "Move" to change the title of a page.
I've also made some very quick changes to the headings of your draft; the most important thing is that the first part of the article (the "lead") shouldn't have a section heading. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jebblz! For helping you along with the references there is also the User:Yunshui/References for beginners. Happy editing! w.carter-Talk 14:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of cleaning up the formatting including the references.--ukexpat (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
You people are amazing and so generous. Thank you. Jebblz (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Jebblz, you asked about searching. I'm not sure if you meant the Wikipedia internal search, or an external search such as Google or Yahoo. External search engines are asked not to index the Draft: namespace, nor most User: pages. All the major ones comply, so none of them should index any draft articles. Wikipedia's internal search will not find drafts from the search bar unless the proper namespace ("Draft:" or "User:" is supplied as part of the query, I think. DES (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, Jebblz, I just looked at Draft:Walter Baets. I think its current biggest problem is that it has pretty much no citations to independent sources, which are needed to clearly establish the notability of the topic.. The current sources are:
  1. A members directory. Not independent, and not substantial coverage even if it were.
  2. A Who's who entry. Generally not considered independent or reliable, as the subject pays for the insertion. And even if it were independant, in this case there is no substantial content to establish notability.
  3. An interview. As interviews are primarily in the subject's own words, and so do not contriubute to notability. In this case the interviewwer says a bit more, but still this doesn't help much.
  4. A profile from a group that gave Baets an award. This might be useful, but it looks very much as if this was copied from Baets's resume or public Bio. If so, it doesn't help with notability at all.
  5. An entry in a faculty directory. The same issues as #1 above.
  6. A paper written by Baets. Does nothign toward notability.
  7. A listing for his book from a book vendor. No substantial content, and not independent.
What is needed is a few news stories or other reliable, independent sources that discuss Baets in some detail. DES (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Article Creation

I'm try to create a Wiki for a new country artist, but it keeps saying I need references. I have them and they're in the body of the text. I don't know what I'm doing wrong.

Ryanlukemitchell (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Have a piece of pie. Creating footnotes takes a knack: Try Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations for help. Good luck! (And use some of the tips and help info that a kind editor left for you at the top of your draft page at Draft:Dustin_Hensley.) Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on article.

Hello,

I just created an article and I would like input from a more experienced editor. Especially relating to the way the sources are listed. In an attempt to put the citations as close to the correct content as possible, I needed to site a few of the articles twice - is there a more correct way for me to do this? Do you see any other issues with the article that you might be able to offer guidance one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Esemque/Learn_to_Live,_Inc.

Esemque (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NAMEDREFS for the references thing. Eman235/talk 00:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Esemque. There is a coding technique called "naming references" that allows you to fully define a reference just once, and use it elsewhere in the article with a brief snippet of code. The reference will appear just once in the reference list. All of the details are at WP:REFNAME. I wrote Harry Yount, rated a Good article, that uses one reference 23 times. Now, I will take a closer look at your draft article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, Esemque. The sources seem weak. The first two are press releases which do not establish notability as they are generated by the company. Others look like they might have been the product of press releases. I think being one of 70 runners-up for a statewide business development competition is a weak claim to notability. Please review the concept of notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen328 for the feedback. So it sounds like you would not expect this article to be accepted with the current sources - is that right?

I'll keep this in a draft form until I can locate some stronger sources or articles from more 3rd party sources.

Thanks!

Esemque (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Although I am not volunteering as an AfC reviewer at this time, I would not be inclined to accept the article in its current form, Esemque. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Food messages

How can I give food related messages in Talkpages as, Some fallafel for you, Some cookies for you? Action Hero (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Action Hero. You can do that by clicking on the red heart that appears at the top of the page when you're on another user's talk page (to the right of "View history"). Cordless Larry (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
You can also use any of the templates listed at Category:Food WikiLove templates; in most cases, adding the code {{subst:name of template}} to their talkpage will create the appropriate message (e.g. typing {{subst:Cookies}} generates the cookies message). Yunshui 雲水 10:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have an article that I want to write which I have ready to go, but I'm co confused as to where to start.

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and I want to write an article.

I'm really confused as to where to start, do I start it with the sandbox, sub page, or use an article wizard. How do I get feedback without it getting deleted or have my account blocked.

Thanks EmmaCook2015 (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I really recommend Articles for Creation: you can create a draft, improve it in your own time and then submit the draft to be accepted/rejected (with constructive criticism) by an experienced reviewer. But before you start, try to make sure your topic is notable – if there aren't any independent secondary sources about the subject, even the best writer in the world can't write an article about it fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I would recommend that you also read WP:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Review Request for a GA nominee article

Solapur needs a review. Please someone do this. Even if it fails, atleast i would be able to correct the faults stated in the review. I have tried my level best to improve this articleDongar Kathorekar (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Dongar Kathorekar, I don't think the Teahouse is the place to request a GA review, but aside from that, the fact that the article has three "This section does not cite any references or sources" notices means it probably doesn't meet the good article criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply. I would try to provide sources for the needed ones. Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The {{GA nominee}} tag you placed on Talk:Solapur means the article has been listed automatically at Wikipedia:Good article nominations; someone will perform a proper GA review eventually. In the meantime, you are more than welcome to try and improve the article further. Please remember that everyone at Wikipedia is a volunteer and there are over 500 current article nominations listed at WP:GAN, so it may take a few months before someone looks at Solapur. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 12:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

question about "insufficient inline citations" notice

This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augur_%28Prediction_Market%29

has a notice put at the top: "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (May 2015)"

I notice it's added quite a few references since. Is this notice still valid and, if so, could you identify, for future reference, where the insufficient inline citations are?

Augurpqd (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You should ask this question on the Talk page of the article. Just click on the "Talk" link at the top of the article page, and carry on your discussion there. You will have to justify all your contributions to Wikipedia. It would be better if you were not a WP:Single-purpose account, as you seem to be, but really we are just interested in how well Wikipedia articles are written and whether they are WP:Notable in just the way we define that term. Good luck! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Augurpqd. There is nothing automatic about notices like that: they are placed there by a human editor, and may be removed by any human editor who thinks that they are no longer appropriate. It does appear to have plenty of inline citations now, so you or anybody may remove the message - but make sure you give a meaningful edit summary, so that your edit doesn't look like vandalism.
I haven't looked at the article in any detail, but I observe that the lead is confusing (at least to me, and probably to many others) because it says "Augur is an open-source decentralized prediction market built utilizing Blockchain technology". In my mind, a market isn't a kind of thing that is capable of being open-source, so I wondered if perhaps Prediction market was a term of art for a software system, but that article does not seem to tell me so. Please remember that Wikipedia is for anybody, and the lead needs to give a proper context for the subject, especially if it is something a bit esoteric. --ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I hear you and will clean this up - I think part of the challenge is that the tech is quite novel and making all kinds of things that were previously not thought to be possible, possible (like bitcoin, open-source code that - shared among consenting nodes - currently allows for digital token exchange with the tokens representing currency or, theoretically, anything else consenting parties would want them, or believe them, to represent). Augurpqd (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I have moved the article to Augur (software) - disambiguators should be a general as possible.--ukexpat (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

suggestion

Hello Teahouse,

may I make a helpful suggestion? perhaps on the WP:GUIDELINES page you may, as there are a lot of categories think about placing some sort of search engine on it. I do see that you have a contents page but it's not very specific, I just feel that a search engine would be more friendlier to newcomers like me. Thanks for taking time to read this--Fruit Nd Nut (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Fruit Nd Nut: You can use the search function to filter out "Wikipedia:" only pages: for instance, this search shows pages in the "Wikipedia namespace" that contain the word "test"; this is done by ticking/unticking the boxes you want at the top of the page (in this case, only "Wikipedia" is ticked). Alternatively, perhaps one of the links in the page's Categories of guidelines sections would help. You might also find something like the Simplified ruleset useful. I do understand your suggestion, and I think it's a reasonable idea, but Wikipedia talk:List of guidelines would probably be the best place to discuss something like this if you want to add a search box to Wikipedia:List of guidelines. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bilorv,

thank-you for your reply and the useful tip you gave me, sorry to ask you in the Teahouse I didn't realise this was not the correct forum to discuss such matters.--Fruit Nd Nut (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Fruit Nd Nut and welcome to Wikipedia. No need to apologize for asking your question in the wrong forum because you asked it at the right place. This forum was specifically designed for new users like you and just about any question is appropriate. Bilorv provided some helpful information about how to use the existing search functionality to find what you need, but was then suggesting if used dill would like to propose something formal that there is a better place to carry on that conversation. It wasn't the case that you are being admonished for asking it in the wrong place, you asked at the right place, but there is a better place to pursue it if you wish to pursue it.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

i just want to ask about something.

can i edit anything? and can i make an article? i just want to ask. Aimispice (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aimispice, welcome to the Teahouse. The short answers are, yes and yes. The longer answers are: yes, barring certain pages which are protected from editing; and yes, but there are quite a lot of rules regarding what you can write an article about (the simplest version of these is the Golden Rule of Wikipedia). If you'd like help editing or writing a new article, please feel free to ask for it; you can get help at any time by adding the code {{helpme}} to your user talkpage and writing your question underneath. Yunshui 雲水 14:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

How to put any permanent notice on talk page of an article?

I want to put notice at talk page (below wikiproject shell) for future editors that "do not move this page from XYZ to ABC because of these reasons". So how I should write this? Can someone give me template of that? Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove  07:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, I am not aware of any template that sends that particular message. I would advise simply creating a new section on the talk page with a section title such as "Article name" or "Reasons not to move article" and then explain why you think a particular move is not a good idea. This will stay in the history of the talk page forever, and it will stay on the talk page until/unless it is archived, possibly for years if the talk page is not high-traffic. Note that you cannot prevent anyone from making a move, merely explain your reasons for thinking it a bad idea. If other editors develop a consensus to make the move anyway, the page would be moved in spite of your views. But if your reasons are good and persuasive, that probably won't happen. DES (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
DESiegel, Thanks for your reply and reminder at my talk page. I think I will go by your suggestion. I think section "Reasons not to move article" will be useful. That article doesn't have much traffic on talk page, it is just recently created article by me. Thanks again. --Human3015Send WikiLove  17:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Issue is that, I myself moved that page to 2-3 titles when I created it. But finally I came to one conclusion. --Human3015Send WikiLove  17:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

How to add box for information about films?

Hi, I would like to add a box where I can fill with information about the movie. Like the right box on this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Like_Sunday,_Like_Rain

However I couldn't find how to do it. Can someone help me?

Best, Daniela

Danielashaw (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The word you've looking for is "infobox". In Like Sunday, Like Rain, it is created with the code at the very top of the text in the edit window, that starts with {{Infobox film and ends with }}. Looking at the code used in that article and using it for the basis of the infobox you want to add might be a good idea. Take a look at Template:Infobox film#Usage to see the valid "parameters" (places to input information) for this template and Help:A quick guide to templates to learn about the mechanics of templates in general. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 18:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :)

Danielashaw (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Specific guidance requested to help get article approved

My draft article Draft:Sacred Attention Therapy has been declined based on the following feedback from the reviewer:

"This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission."

I have reviewed guidelines on ‘context’ and ‘writing better articles’ and see nothing to guide me toward revising my article for approval. Can anyone in the Wikipedia community provide any specific guidance to improve my article so that I can get it approved? RobMeagherSAT (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, RobMeagherSAT and welcome to the Teahouse. The article should explain, in an early section, what SAT is supposed to do, what sorts of problems or issues it is intended to solve, and where it fits within the wide realm of mental therapy. See how the early sections of the article Cognitive behavioral therapy explain what CBT is and how is is supposed to work. You need to do something of the sort for SAT.
Then in the section "Core elements of Sacred Attention Therapy", you have many phrases such as "The primary paradigm for how we relate to others and to life, as drawn from our experience of the family..." Wikipedia article should not address the reader or assume a narrator in this way. Instead something such as "The primary paradigm for how a person relates to others and to life, as drawn from the person's experience of the family..." Or "the patient" or "the subject" might be used instead of "a person". But not "we", nor "I" nor "you". Also, these "Core elements" must be cited to a source that says thy are part of SAT.
Later the draft reads "Freud, Allport, Fromm, and Descartes all speak of elements resembling the Central Character Dynamic". This kind of analysis must be sourced. If a reliable source has written this, the article may quote or paraphrase that source, with attribution and a citation. If this is a wide consensus among scholars of the subject, that may be stated, with appropriate sourcing to demonstrate that it is in fact a widely held view. But a Wikipedia article (and its drafter) may not draw such conclusions and state them in Wikipedia's voice. The same isuse isa present in all 5 paragraphs startling with "There are elements resembling the Central Character Dynamic in other psychological theories". You need sources that say not just what these other scholars have thought about the human mind and psyche, but that some reputable expert has said that aspects of their theories are similar to aspects of SAT. Otherwise there is no reason to mention them.
I hope these comments are helpful. DES (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DESiegel for your feedback...very much appreciated. I have since resubmitted the article for re-review based on feedback from a LIVE CHAT. If the article comes back with 'not accepted,' I will refer back to your wonderful guidance here as I work to revise the article again. Many thanks for your effort. RobMeagherSAT (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome, RobMeagherSAT. I have edited the draft to separate the note from the citations. Other notes can be added if they are appropriate, using {{efn-ua}}.
You do not have to wait for the next review to make further changes and improvements. The reviewer will take the draft in whatever state it is when he or she gets to it. I have posted a version of my comments to Draft talk:Sacred Attention Therapy, for reference. DES (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

copywrite your own material

they flagged me fr speedy deletion because they said my text matched the same bio I wrote for website. I am the creater and copywrite holder. how can I resolve this misunderstanding and get article active? UrbanAnthropology (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, UrbanAnthropology. This is not a misunderstanding. We cannot accept any significant amount of written content which is copyrighted unless it is freely released under an acceptable Creative Commons license. The website in question has nothing posted saying that the content is free for anyone to use for any purpose. You may be the author but we can't use the material unless it is formally licensed in writing. However, an even more important issue is that the language of the website is promotional and therefor inappropriate for an encyclopedia. For example, consider this sentence: "These skills and passion for numbers served him well in his professional career, and have been vital in his success across numerous industries." That is marketing language, and our articles must be written from the neutral point of view. I suggest reading and studying Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

how can i make a draft into an actual article

I am having trouble getting the word "Draft" out of my tile of my articleZJ12345 (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello ZJ12345, welcome to the Teahouse! My advice would be to give our "your first article" tutorial a read through. The key points to remember are that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as a result, there are many things we are not; for example, Wikipedia is not vehicle for advertising or promotion. We also have three "core content policies": Wikipedia articles should be 1) verifiable, meaning that readers should be able to check to make sure what's being said in the article is true; 2) written from a neutral point of view, which means explaining all viewpoints clearly and without bias (as opposed to taking up a particular viewpoint); and 3) contain no original research, which means that we write about things that other people have said about at topic, not the interpretations of Wikipedia editors.
Once you feel you understand the purpose of Wikipedia, I recommend going through the Article Wizard, which will help you decide whether a topic you want to write about is suitable for Wikipedia. If you have already written a draft and feel it is in line with our goals as an encyclopedia, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page, and it will then be reviewed by an experienced editor to decide whether it is suitable or not. It is important that you keep the foregoing principles in mind as you edit and create new articles, as articles that are found to be unsuitable are often deleted. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask here. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems that your draft was deleted for being promotional in tone. Don't worry! Just see the remark that the deleter made, then create another draft and try not to trip any of the filters in WP:CSD. -Kurousagi 05:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
ZJ12345 to get your deleted draft back, follow the procedure at WP:REFUND. This will only work if your draft was not obviously advertising or a copyright violation.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

sandbox-article wizard

Hello, I've been writing an article for 2 weeks now, but in my personal sandbox. There is something I did'nt understand, what is the difference between the Article Wizard and the sandbox .. If I want a review of my article, should I rewrite it with the Wizard ? If it's ok by he sandbox, will it be deleted if my article is not good. Kushi-tolom (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Kushi-tolom yes its OK to write an article in your sandbox, or any user page although in the Drafts area is preferred. Unless an article has such things as copyright issues, threats, serious BLP issues etc it will not be deleted, just declined with a reason so you can continue to work on it. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kushi-tolom, I just had a quick look and you really need to add some more references to the lead and first 3 following sections as they have none. See Help:Referencing for beginners for more help on referencing. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you KylieTastic for your answer :) Kushi-tolom (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kushi-tolom. When you think your draft is ready for review, please edit it to add {{subst:submit}} at the top. --ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wierd linking fail; new one for me

This might be a VPT question but I like to bring things to this forum for variety (and there's some very sophisticated technical users who contribute here) so: Check out this diff. The link I used appears in every way I can think of correct. If you copy and paste into the search box it functions fine. It was also created with copy and paste – the only thing I supplied manually is the number sign. If I click on it, however, it takes me to our mainspace article at Request (and it's not redirecting there). Does it do that for you too? Never seen this particular head scratcher before. Any ideas?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you perhaps pipe it the wrong way round (i.e. write [[Request|Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Draft:Shut Up Weirdo]] instead of [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Draft:Shut Up Weirdo|Request]])? I've done that in the past. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey Bilorv. That is actually the best explanation; what I would think if someone asked me why X was going to Y like that; it explains it to a tee. Therefore it probably is the case – even though my memory is very fresh. The reason it did not even occur to me was because I can still feel the echo of my actions: I never placed a pipe, I had no reason to pipe the link at all, and I did the whole thing with copy and paste so I just can't see how I could have piped it. But, I must have. Human error is usually the culprit. Thanks for the cold reality check:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
According to [1] your edit summary was "Restored per [[request|Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Draft:Shut Up Weirdo]]". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Proper protocol to question/respond to removal of an edit

I'm a new editor and I noticed that the important events date for August 5 does not include the Attack at the Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. My edit was removed by an editor due to formatting problems and a question as to whether it was globally noteworthy.

I corrected the formatting and reposted, but it was then removed again by a different editor with no explanation given.

I have checked the guidelines for these pages for noteworthy events which are crimes, and I believe this fits the standard. I also noted that a very similar crime is listed on June 17 events for the attack at the Charlotte AME Church.

What is the proper way to resolve this? I posted about it on the talk page, but without explanation as to why the edit was removed a second time I am not sure what to do to provide the necessary justification and to whom I should provide it. Thanks! 94608Katsu (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey 94608Katsu. I see you've already posted to Talk:August 5. That would have been my first recommendation. However, that page is only on the watchlists of 68 users. Even though that is not on its own a tiny number, that article has a history that goes back to 2001, and has had more than 2,800 edits by 1,420 different users (though some were IPs of course); it's the type of topic that naturally has lots of 'drive by editing,' so I'm betting a really significant percentage of that number is editors who are no longer active. Probably more significantly, the talk page has only had 19 edits total. What I suggest is that you post instead to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year. Even though that 'only' has 79 watchers, it couldn't be more different. The fact it's a project page makes its editors much more likely to be core users, and its talk page has had 1,194 edits.

As to your post, make it easy on people: provide the diffs of your edits instead of making people read a description and search what you mean and link the article Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. You might also post your proposed edit alongside the discussion thread.

Also be aware of the criteria at Wikipedia:Days of the year. The common thread seems to be truly large scale events. For example, "Major terrorist attacks that greatly affected countries and had a significant number of casualties (i.e. over 1000)". You're right that the Charleston church shooting seems a comparable event on many levels, but that received extraordinary and global news coverage, a eulogy by the president of the United States, vast numbers of people rallying and so forth, that the Sikh Temple attack simply did not generate. Looking to sourcing as one metric someone might turn to, even though the Sikh Template attack was three years ago, a Google News search of "<"Wade Michael Page" Oak Creek> finds 1,590 results. The Charleston church shooting was less than two months ago and a similar search <"Dylann Roof" Charleston> finds 106,000 results. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources.

Hi! If someone uses a published news article as a source to cite very specific info on a wikipedia article, while the news article in fact contains information that are scientifically incorrect, but also irrelevant to the subject. Would that affect its credibility? Also, how many credible sources do you usually need to prove anything? Thanks! UnluckyClover77 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent question, UnluckyClover77. The most important thing to remember is that no media source is 100% reliable. Editorial judgement is required. Let me give an example: One strong indicator that a given source is reliable is when they are quick to publish detailed corrections when they make a mistake. We tend to trust such sources. They prove that they are generally reliable by admitting that, in a small percentage of cases, they are unreliable. But it would be wrong to cite an uncorrected version of such a faulty news article in a Wikipedia article
It should be obvious that some news outlets are more reliable than others, and that there is a continuum between the very best sources and mostly unacceptable ones. In general, when a wide range of sources are available to back up a specific claim, it is best to select the two or three sources with the most widely accepted reputation for reliability.
Even the best source is useless if it does not back up the assertion being referenced.
As for "scientifically incorrect", that raises many possibilities. We do not put claims that the moon landings were faked in our moon or Apollo Program articles. But such kook theories are notable enough that they can be described in articles about the conspiracy theory, although we should never state or imply that such theories are true in Wikipedia's voice. As a general rule, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine whether or not a given claim is "scientifically correct", except in our own minds. We should summarize what legitimate scientific sources say about a claim. If the vast majority of reliable sources say that the claim is hogwash, then so should we. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response and good info. What I meant is that the news article in question contains statement A (Which is relevant) and statement B (Which is not relevant to the subject). Of course, the editor would include this news article because of statement A, but what if statement B is scientifically incorrect? And by scientifically incorrect I mean it is relatively easy to find a dozen other "VERY" reliable sources to challenge it. Doesn't that diminish the whole article's credibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnluckyClover77 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, UnluckyClover77. I cannot judge a specific case without a link to the article and information about the claim in question. But I think that the aphorism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" may be relevant. Let's say that a low end "popular" science magazine reports that a notable UFO advocate died of a heart attack at age 87 on such and such a date. It is probably reliable enough for that claim. But the article in the sane magazine one page over that says some guy has invented a gadget allowing cars to run on distilled water? That is an extraordinary claim requiring vastly better sourcing. I hope that helps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that will suffice. Thanks again! :)197.135.43.79 (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

What is this?

What is the teahouse?Icy monster gun (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The teahouse is a place to ask any questions about wikipedia. Welcome! Thanks The Editor of All Things Wikipedia 《Talk》 08:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor of All Things Wikipedia (talk • contribs)

Help

Can someone fix the formatting of the committed identity box on my user page so the box is just around the text and not on the whole background of the page? Thanks The Editor of All Things Wikipedia 《Talk》 08:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor of All Things Wikipedia (talk • contribs)

 Fixed Someone else fixed this in response to a similar post at the help desk. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia page - Speedy deletion nomination

Dear.

I am actually a new user in Wikipedia, I have been writing a biography, some hours ago, I requested help to this contact page regarding an issue of getting rid of the username in the title of the page. I would not like the others have access to my login section. However, it takes by surprise that my page was deleted. I do not know the exact reasons, but I am trying to fix the problems. The page is still in the process and I have not completely work all the details.

Could you please help me to recover the page: the username is: Luislaaglobal

Thanks in advance Luislaaglobal (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Luislaaglobal and welcome to the Teahouse. You asked the same question on your talk page where it has been answered, but I'll give it one more shot here. The Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and not a social site like Facebook or Twitter, read about it all at: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Your user page is not for writing a biography on, it is a page where you describe what your intentions here on the Wikipedia are, what you want to write about or things like that. That is why the page was removed and it will not be restored. All this is explained at Wikipedia:User pages. You can also try looking at other user pages and see how they are done. Start by clicking on some of the names you see here at the Teahouse. I think you should read about working here and making articles in Wikipedia:Your first article, that will give you more information. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 09:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Luislaaglobal It is not just that the page was a draft biography on your user page, which is not a proper location. If that had been the only issue the page could have been moved to a proper location. It appears to be an Autobiography which is strongly discouraged. And the draft, which i read, makes it pretty clear that its subject (whether that is actually you or not) is not notable in the special Wikipedia sense. See the golden rule. Even if the subject should prove to be notable, the draft went into far too much detail on the early life and education of the subject, which is not what he (or almost anyone) is notable for. Under the circumstances i am not willing to restore the page, although you could ask the deleting admin or at WP:REFUND. However, if yoiu ask, I would be willing to email you the text of the draft. DES (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you DES, for adding this. I could not see the content of the deleted page since that is for admins only, and I prefer to deal in facts rather than guessing. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Formatting Sources.

I have had several submissions rejected and to increase the chances that my next submission will be accepted I have attempted to add some published sources to my article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roberta_Grossman

But now the references repeat themselves twice. I don't know how to correct this. I also don't know how to footnote within the article without it turning into an external link.

Please help.

Thank you.

Ahurvitz2 (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ahurvitz2, and welcome to the Teahouse. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once, Referencing for Beginners, and citing sources. In short, you can add a "name" to a citation in the ref tag. Then you can reuse the name so that the source is cited multiple times. For example, if you were to include:
<ref name=Jones>{{cite Book|first=John |last=Jones |title=The Truth about Smith|pages=25-30|year=1997}}</ref>
you could later include
<ref name=Jones /> (note the closing slash on the ref tag.)
Overall this might be used something like this:
Jones described Smith as "a very angry man".[1] Indeed he stressed that Smith was violent on many occasions.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Jones, John (1997). The Truth about Smith. pp. 25–30.

I hope this clarifys the technique a bit, DES (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ahurvitz2. I believe that Roberta Grossman is almost certainly notable as a documentary filmmaker with a long and distinguished career, and what you need to do is add and use the very best sources that devote significant coverage to her, and weed out the lower quality sources such as blogs. The Ha'aretz article is a strong source, but it is discussing her career in the context of an unreleased 2017 film. Look for similar articles that discuss her in the context of her released films. I have copy edited and wikilinked the draft article a bit, making it fit in a bit better with our established Manual of Style. Good luck. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328 I greatly appreciate your help in getting the draft of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roberta_Grossman into publishable Wikipedia shape. I will continue to see if there are "very best sources" out there to include in her article.

Ahurvitz2 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

RefTools problem

I am a frequent user of the RefToolbar, but since 7 August I have noticed that, when clicked, the templates dropdown menu now disappears behind the large editable text box. Because of this I cannot click on any of the four choices cite web, cite news, cite journal, or cite book. I know that I could go to the actual template pages to copy, paste, and manually fill in the appropriate fields. I mention this just to see of other editors also have this issue. If my explanation of the problem is unclear, I apologize. I will upload a screenshot of the problem to Commons if needed. Vycl1994 (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vycl1994. I can't help you with the specific problem with the Ref Toolbar, since I edit "old school", creating my references manually. As long as the toolbar has technical problems, let me recommend Wikipedia:Citation templates, where you can find the code for all the major reference templates on a single page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Vycl1994. I would add to Cullen328's advice by suggesting that you ask your question again at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I took a look to see if anyone else had the same problem that you are having. I didn't see anything specifically to do with the RefToolbar. There are lots of editors who patrol that page twho are well versed in the technical aspects of editing. Good luck and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both for your suggestions. I have posted at the Village pump and will leave a link to the Wikipedia:Citation templates on my user page. Vycl1994 (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Upgrade with no references

Hi teahouse hosts, several list defined reference errors have flagged up with this major edit but the editor didn't supply any new references and doesn't have a talk page. As it stands, the article seems to fall short of the standard we expect for a BLP but I'm not sure what action is required. If one deleted everything that is unreferenced there wouldn't be an article. CV9933 (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You probably should contact the major editor and ask them about the references. I'd recommend finding reliable ones yourself if there is no reply.
There is also the possibility that the user's IP is non-static- in which case the refs would need to be added manually. (Teahouse guest -Kurousagi 12:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC))
Hey CV9933. There are times when to revert or not is a close call but this was really far from a grey area; the edit had many problems to it, which I've listed upon my revert. Any similarly situated edit you find, one that blanks sourced content, and replaces it with unsourced content – especially in a biography of a living person – adds marketing speak language, and to boot breaks the code of the page should be reverted immediately, with prejudice, and without a second thought. This was also a blatant copyright violation. Based on the copyright violation, I've RevDeleted the version in the history. This can be requested using {{Copyvio-revdel}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. That was the more comprehensive answer I was looking for. Since there were no new references supplied, I was focused on that element. I figured the tone of the article was therefore irrelevent and I probably didn't spot the copyvio for the same reason.CV9933 (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Band Page

I just tried to make a page for my band and it got speedily deleted, wanted to know why? Thanks Rosco1231 (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rosco1231, welcome to the Teahouse. The article you created has been placed under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which means that you didn't provide enough sources or verifications to indicated the notability of the subject. As you created an article about a band it must satisfy general notability guideline or notability criteria for music groups to have a Wikipedia article. Please do not re-create deleted articles unless you think you can address the issues pointed out by deleting administrator. Also, please do not create nonsensical articles such as FleeceBand regarding the same subject as they will be speedily deleted as well. Best,--Chamith (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
If you are an inexperienced editor, it is recommended that you create articles in draft space rather than in article space. That way, when you submit them for approval, if they are declined, you will have comments indicating why they were declined, and the article will still exist, so that it can be improved. If you create an article in article space that falls short of the minimum criteria, as you have seen, it may be speedy-deleted. So I suggest that, in the future, you create articles in draft space. If you submit them and they are declined, you will have comments, and the comments can be discussed with the reviewer, including here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rosco1231. Fleece (Band) merely said that this is a band, and listed the members. It had no sources, and said nothing about why this particular band is significant or important, much less notable. I urge you to read our notability guideline for bands, Your First Article, and the summery of the essentials for an article. After that, If you think you can supply the needed sources to make a valid article, i urge you to use the article wizard which will help you create a page in draft space, as suggested above, and have an experienced editor review it before it is subject to speedy deletion for notability or most other reasons. (However, do NOT copy text from the band's website or other sites. That would be a copyright violation, and would get even a draft page speedy deleted.) DES (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Help linking portal images

Hi Tea house team, Can someone please help me with linking portal images? I want to link this image to the Serer people portal and this image to the Serer religion portal. Would someone please show me how to do this? For example when you place Portal|United Kingdom to Wikipedia articles the UK flag appears. I need to know how to link the above images for portals Serer people and religion. Any help would be immensely appreciated. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Tamsier I assume you mean the image when using {{Portal|Serer people}} and {{Portal|Serer religion}}
In which case you need to request the changes Template talk:Portal - Start a new section add {{edit template-protected}} at the top of the request, a polite request and list the two requests...
Hope that answers it ok? KylieTastic (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much KylieTastic. Tamsier (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
* Hi Tamsier I see your asked John of Reading the same thing after you response here so I'm assuming maybe you didn't quite understand - So I've posted the request for you with this edit over on Template talk:Portal. So the next admin or template editor who passes by (and may well be John of Reading) should fix that up for you. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for that. That is most helpful. Tamsier (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

error made

Please could you revert my error made on user: Rowdy srezan's page please.--Fruit Nd Nut (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Fruit Nd Nut, and welcome to the Teahouse.  Done I suppose you were trying to make a copy of User:Rowdy srezan/navbar for your own use, is that correct? do you want help with that? DES (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
that was what I was trying to do so yes your help would be much appreciated Des.--Fruit Nd Nut (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is what you need to do, Fruit Nd Nut:
  1. edit User:Rowdy srezan/navbar and copy the full wiki code for the page. Don't save any changes.
  2. Edit User:Fruit Nd Nut/navbar and paste the code from step 1.
  3. Change all references to "Rowdy srezan" to "Fruit Nd Nut".
  4. Save User:Fruit Nd Nut/navbar thus creating the page.
  5. Edit User:Fruit Nd Nut and change {{User:Rowdy srezan/navbar}} to {{User:Fruit Nd Nut/navbar}}
  6. Edit User talk:Fruit Nd Nut and add {{User:Fruit Nd Nut/navbar}} at the top
I hope those instructions are clear. DES (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding last message

I sent User: Des a reply to his offer of help (please see message Titled Error made haven't had a response yet!!!--Fruit Nd Nut (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have now responded in the section below. Sorry for the delay, Fruit Nd Nut, but it was only a few hours. DES (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

quick Question

how can I put picture of the day and userbox side by side please.--Fruit Nd Nut (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You can do that by putting {{Pic of the day}} under the userboxes instead of above. Eman235/talk 00:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Fruit Nd Nut: The above means that it's {{Pic of the day}} that will move down when there aren't room for both in narrow windows. If you want the userboxes to move down in narrow windows then you could put this at top:
{{Float-left-begin}}
{{Pic of the day}}
{{Float-left-end}}
PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Something wrong with diffs?

Probably not the right place to ask, but...

I was looking at the revision history for RuneScape and noticed something very odd. When I click on the "prev" next to the 19:27, 24 July 2015 revision by Maths314 (which leads to this), it shows the 19:21, 24 July 2015 and 19:27, 24 July 2015 revisions, as expected. When I click on "Next edit", it shows me the 19:27, 24 July 2015 revision... and the 09:26, 4 January 2004 revision by 144.132.201.77.

I don't know if this is just me or if anyone else has this issue. Anyways, any thoughts are appreciated. CabbagePotato (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  • All I can say is what I see CabbagePotato - and that is 20:27 for both the history list and the "Revision as of.." - odd one getting 19:21! KylieTastic (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, CabbagePotato. According to the page logs: 7 August 2015 Graham87 restored page RuneScape (4 revisions restored: history merge four edits from early January 2004 whose content was merged into this article ... they fit snugly between the old text and the merge) History merges, especially when some of the revisions are very old, can have this kind of effect. This is because the revision history sorts by revision ID number, not by date, but in a history merge sometimes old revisions are assigned new IDs. This is a known bug, ask over at WP:VPT for more detail. Mostly one can just not worry about it. DES (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@DESiegel: That seems to make sense. Thank you! CabbagePotato (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@DESiegel and CabbagePotato: Indeed. In this case the revisions have out-of-order ID numbers because they were deleted before Wikipedia was upgraded to MediaWiki 1.5 in late June 2005. In this case they were deleted in August 2004 to make way for this page move (admin-only link to logs). Graham87 02:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Living person

Hi, I interviewed the person I'm writing about, how can I use the information I gathered ? Internet sources on his personal life are not available, and my interview is not published...how can I cite them ? Thanks, Kushi-tolom (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kushi-tolom, and welcome to the Teahouse. Since the interview is not published, you can't cite it, and so none of the information from it can be used in a Wikipedia article, unless you can find other sources for it. I'm afraid that interviewing your subject is simply not helpful in drafting a Wikipedia article. If you can get the interview published by a reputable publisher (not on a persona web site or blog) then someone (preferably not you) could then cite it in such an article. (I say "preferably not you" as it is strongly discouraged for an editor here to cite his or her own work).
Wikipedia articles are based on already published information, mostly from independent reliable sources. An interview, even if published, is a primary source and as such must be used with care. Doing one's own interview constitutes original research and is not acceptable as part of the basis for a Wikipedia article. I am sure this will be frustrating, but it is how Wikipedia works. DES (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Kushi-tolom. One possibility, although it is slow, is to write an article off-Wikipedia, based on the interview, and submit it for publication to a reliable source specializing in the topic area. Once published, your article can then be cited here on Wikipedia. Do so cautiously, disclosing that you are the author of the source. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Images of Actors

Those actors and actresses who are dead have their young pic in Wikipedia. Those who are alive, they have their latest pic. Should actresses above 70 and living, have their young age picture at the top right box in Wikipedia? Action Hero (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe the most recent picture should be used. If none, there should be a caption under it notifying the reader that this is a young picture. -Kurousagi 08:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Action Hero and welcome to the Teahouse. I can give you part of the answer. With older actors there are often no other pictures available for the Wikipedia than those from their younger or more active years. Sometimes because that was the only time they were photographed for public use, and sometimes because the copyright for the more recent pictures has not yet expired. Actors that are alive today are frequently photographed at events by fans and people who upload their photos for free use on the Commons or with free use tags on social sites, making it easier for editors here to keep the picture in the article updated. "Younger" pictures are often included in the article and following the timeline of the actor's career, Clint Eastwood is a good example of this. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_372&oldid=951132611"