Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 479

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 475 ← Archive 477 Archive 478 Archive 479 Archive 480 Archive 481 → Archive 485

User:Dimigaza/sandbox and WP:NOTWEBHOST ?

I read User:Dimigaza/sandbox and declined it based on WP:NOTWEBHOST, and tagged it for speedy deletion as WP:U5. However, User:Dimigaza then wrote, on my talk page:

Hi Robert, could you Be More specific about what I Have done wrong in creating my Page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dimigaza/sandbox&action=edit Kind regards, Dimitri

While I think that what I did is clear and that creating this page was a violation of U5, it occurs to me that User:Dimigaza may not understand what Wikipedia is and is not, and there may be a language comprehension issue. Can someone please explain to Dimigaza in Dutch what the policy issue is and why their submission had to be declined. On the other hand, if someone disagrees with me and thinks that I should have accepted the sandbox, or at least that I should not have tagged it, will they please, in the first case, explain why I should have accepted it, or, second, explain why it should be retained in draft space?

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Now I see what you mean, Robert. Because the Wikipage is linked to a site which is a memorial with a huge database of names indeed.

But on the contrary, my Wikipage displays solely the 'sources' used for this memorial. And I thought that this is what Wikipedia was also about. Not only providing information but mention the sources on which the information is based as well.

Your thoughts please77.162.122.56 (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

First, your web page isn't a draft encyclopedic article in the Wikipedia sense. It isn't an article about the Dutch resistance, and so it doesn't provide the sort of neutral information that is the purpose of Wikipedia. We already have an article about the Dutch resistance, and you are welcome to add to it. Your web page appears to be intended to serve as a memorial to the brave men and women who resisted the Nazis non-violently or violently. If that isn't its purpose, that certainly appears to me to be its purpose, and that (even with sources) isn't what Wikipedia servers are meant for. That is, it appears to me that you are asking Wikipedia to host an on-line memorial to the Dutch resistance. If there are specific monuments to the Dutch Resistance that are not described in Wikipedia but are described by reliable sources, we likely want articles about them. If there are specific people whose support for the resistance to the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands was covered by newspapers or magazines (that is, was notable), we likely want articles about them. I would appreciate the comments of other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

What is better to create an article or a draft?

Hi, I have a question: what is better - creating draft and sending it to submission, or creating articles at once? Also could I move my draft to the articles space? Are there any rules about it? Buhram (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Buhram. I suggest you read Your first article: I recently edited that page to include the sentence "Create the article first in Draft or User space unless you are very sure that you can create an acceptable article on your first attempt". There's no rule to say where you should create an article, but if you create it in main space, it will be subject immediately to being nominated for deletion if it is not satisfactory in various ways.
Similarly, there is no rule against moving a draft from Draft space to main space, but if you are not experienced in creating articles, it is much better to submit it for review (if you initially create it using articles for creation, the software will automatically place a button in the draft that you can pick to submit it). The reviewer will either accept it and move it to main space, or will tell you why in their opinion, it is not ready for release to main space. --ColinFine (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
ColinFine, thank you for irrefragable answer. Buhram (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
In looking over your talk page, I see that you were warned by admin User:SpacemanSpiff: first, to stop moving declined drafts to article space; second, to stop removing speedy deletion tags from articles you created; third, to stop copying text into pages that you create (copyright violation). You should take the second and third warnings very seriously. Either of them may be a basis for being blocked. Both of those are prohibited by policy. As to the first, which you are asking about, you are not prohibited by policy from moving declined drafts into article space. It is just a bad idea, a way of causing yourself unnecessary pain. If a draft is declined at AFC, it will almost certainly be a candidate for deletion by one or another of the three deletion processes. I can see that you may find Articles for Creation to be a painful process, but Articles for Deletion is a more painful process. So, when your articles are declined, ask for help here, rather than moving them into article space where they will be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, thank you, removing speedy deletion was once as misunderstanding. Could you help me with Draft:Pankaj Naram? Reviewers wrote that it is questionable and not notable. DGG thinks that alternative medicine papers are not notable itself, books and awards are not important. How could I show a notability of indian healer? Buhram (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
papers he has written are not relevant for notability unless you can prove they are widely influential. I did not see that he has written any books. A single trial reported in a journal does not meet the standards of WP:MEDRS I see no books written about him,tho I see books where he is mentioned. The articles written about him are non-substantial notices. Awards need to be of national significance. That he has treated notable people is not notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding a Reference

I would like for the following to line up with the other references on the page. I believe it is hidden. I have saved it but it never appears with a number as the next reference with the same symbol. How do I make this happen?

Rgray146 (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

To add a reference inline, as it appears you intended to do here, you must use the <ref>...</ref> tags, which are placed inline in the text next to the sentences that the reference is supporting. For example, the markup ABC was a notable person known for DEF.<ref>Gee, HI. "Some book name". 2001</ref> returns:

ABC was a notable person known for DEF.[1]

  1. ^ Gee, HI. "Some book name". 2001

Intelligentsium 20:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

What I need to do to save my page from deletion ?

This page was 3times deleted from different naming. At last I am proceeding in accordance with Wikipedia suggestions by creating a Draft page. Now I want to give a look of my page as an article page, so it can easily get in the search box. Kindly help me.Syed Aminul Islam 13:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyedAminul (talk • contribs) 13:21, 30 April 2016‎

Which page, please tell the name. -- Yes ji (★talk★) 13:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Yes ji: You can often determine the background of a question here by reviewing the user's contributions before posting a reply. Intelligentsium 21:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
That was made more difficult in this case, Intelligentsium, because SyedAminul did not sign their post properly, and Yes ji (not unreasonably), assumed that they were another user, Syed Aminul Islam. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I see several drafts on your talk page that have been deleted or nominated for deletion. The best approach would be to create drafts in drafts space (whether using the WP:Article Wizard or from scratch) and to submit them to Articles for Creation. In that case, if your drafts do not meet notability criteria, they will be declined rather than deleted, and you can continue to work on them, following the advice of the reviewers. Finding the right references to establish notability, even when the topic is notable, is not always easy even for experienced editors, so it is a good idea to use Articles for Creation. If you have any questions about AFC (Articles for Creation), this is a good place to ask. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the difference between "Agency" and "Work?" in the "News citation" template?

More specifically, should the name of a newspaper used as a source go in the "Agency" box or the "Work?" box in the "News citation" template? Eddie Blick (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Eddie Blick. A newspaper is "Work". The feature inserts {{cite news|...}} in the page. That means it uses Template:cite news and has documentation there. "Agency" is for a news agency (wire service). Newspapers often say a story is from a news agency and both fields may be filled out in such cases like the second example at Template:cite news#Examples (newspaper is an alias for work). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate the insight. I hadn't thought about including the wire service, but I will be alert to add that when applicable. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes about incorrect information on Newport International University Page

2602:306:3BA1:21A0:EC9F:6DDB:DB3F:9E91 (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Hello,

Hope all is well. I had reached out to your team before about the Wikipedia page for Newport International University. As I previously mentioned, the information on our page is for a different university named Newport University (which we are no way affiliated with). I have been trying to input our correct information as it affects the students we receive. I tried changing it myself manually and my information reverted back to the old page. Since then, I have spoken to a Wikipedia representative and they informed me that changing the page myself is not the way to go about it but rather I should have an editor or someone who is established in article world write something. Since then, I have contacted two writers who both changed the information to our correct factual details. Again, those two were both bumped and reverted back to the old page. I need to know how to change our information to the correct information. The previous school that our information is in regards to has not only changed name, but gone out of business. This incorrect information is hurting the reputation of our school and, most importantly, is not valid information. Please advise me on the best way to take care of this matter immediately as it is vital for our standing with the general public. My email is <redacted>

Thank you in advance and I look forward to hearing from you soon!2602:306:3BA1:21A0:EC9F:6DDB:DB3F:9E91 (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@2602:306:3BA1:21A0:EC9F:6DDB:DB3F:9E91: A few suggestions...
  • Create a permanent Wikipedia user account that makes it very clear you are trying to be transparent about your conflict of interest (see WP:COI -- if you have not yet read the COI page, please do so today). A user name something like Newport Int'l University would work well since it almost matches the article name thus making it clear who you represent.oops, bad advice -- see comments below by Fuhghettaboutit When that user account is created you can also leave a short comment on the User Page telling people who you are and that you are trying your best to respect our COI rules and would appreciate any help and guidance making the article good quality per our policies.
  • After having created that account use it to discuss these issues at the article's Talk Page just like you are here (but keep everything there from now on) which you can find at Talk:Newport International University. Make sure you provide clear evidence of what you want to have removed (or added) and be patient, WP can move slowly at times.
  • If there is something that is urgently wrong and completely false (for example hypothetically imagine the "other" Newport school goes out-of-business and someone writes that on your school's page) feel free to remove it right away but in the Edit Summary write False information, see Talk Page. and then immediately go to the Talk Page and write up a new section explaining what you did and why (again with evidence). Better still write up that section BEFORE you edit the actual article so that it is available before it is needed. Let me repeat that this approach is only for "urgent" issues of false information. Abuse this option and your account could likely get blocked really fast.
  • Both pages (your school's and the other school's) should probably have a {{distinguish}} or {{about}} tag added to each of them. If you will provide the home page of both schools someone will probably do that as soon we get a chance. DONE
  • Finally, take some time to find out how things work at WP. Edit some articles that are completely unrelated to your school for the gaining of WP editing experience. Realize the account you would be using will be seen as representing your school so probably a good idea to avoid controversial topics (i.e.: Would your boss / the school approve/disapprove of having their name attached to these edits?).
  • Alternatively you can use a different account for "personal" (non work related) edits but you must be E-X-T-R-E-M-E-L-Y careful not to run afoul of our policies on "sockpuppets" (see WP:SOCK). NOTE: Having two legitimate accounts there is a real risk of "accidentally" being logged into the "wrong one". If you A-L-W-A-Y-S use your personal account ONLY on your home computer and your work account ONLY on your work computer that can be avoided. Also never use your personal account to edit your school's WP article or related pages.
Thanks for asking for help and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 01:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with the advice offered about the suggested username. Such a username would be a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy. We do not allow usernames that state or imply that they are an "official" account of an organization or company. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I have already retracted the advice on names per Fuhghettaboutit's advice (see below). I was not aware of that policy before. Thanks to both of you for pointing it out. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 06:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Person editing from 2602:306:3BA1:21A0:EC9F:6DDB:DB3F:9E91. There's some good advice above. However, do not follow the advice about choosing an account name. That is extremely likely to get you softblocked very quickly, with a direction to change your account name – as it would appear as a promotional username representing a group. See WP:GROUPNAME and WP:ISU. Choose one username, not necessarily your real name, but not implying you are in any way representing an organization or implying a group and understand that accounts cannot be shared. It is always good when you post to the talk page and suggest changes to identify reliable sources that verify any change or addition and even removals, though under the specific circumstances here that may not be relevant. Just keep it in mind. You can use the template {{paid}} to make the mandatory disclosure on a userpage, required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Note that you can draw editors to a talk page post seeking a change using the template {{request edit}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Koala Tea Of Mercy, could you strike or delete the part of your advice that is likely to get an editor blocked if they follow it? I wouldn't want new editors browsing this page to think that creating an institutional account is a good idea. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Fuhghettaboutit and Cordless Larry for correcting me on the GROUPNAME thing. Even old dogs like me learn a new thing now and then. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 14:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Article group boxes?

What is the name for a group of similar article links in a collapsible box at the end of an article? I want to create a new one for a group of articles on the same theme. Orb4peace (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Orb4peace. Those boxes are a type of template - one of a couple of different types of template specifically called navigation templates. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Renaming

Hi, I'm here for the first time, and I want to help. Perhaps someone from the bureaucrats to readed, rename me of Koroshami, to Lhea, because I and my friend through mathematic created a new word Koroshami, quotes "Japanese Kiss", and we saying: Koroshami, in Lithuanian language it was a Korošami. I look at how many Lheas to you, and the real name and no. I'm looking at the LheaJLove, at the Lheaom, it is still some. And I'll just be a Lhea. Thank you very much.Koroshami (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Koroshami. You can request a username change at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you.Koroshami (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Your incessant cries for further footnotes

This refers to the article on the novel Death of Kings, about which your schoolmarmish reviewer (a sophomore?) has written: "This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

My question: Why not advise all contributors of articles on books, movies, and the like, to attach five to 122 footnotes that read as follows: "I read the book," "I watched the movie," or whatever.197.250.193.235 (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

tildetildetildetilde S.H. Fisher197.250.193.235 (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Articles on books shouldn't just (or even primarily) draw on the book itself as a source, IP editor. Where sources have been requested, that request should be fulfilled by providing secondary sources that discuss the book concerned. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Most book articles have a reception section with information about the book's reception by critics. Try searching Google newspaper archives. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
You aren't about to make any colleagues on Wikipedia by anonymously berating a reviewer as a schoolmarmish sophomore. The matter of to what extent books and movies, which are primary sources about themselves, should be accepted in articles about books and movies, has been a matter of debate. Self-published books, while not literally a dime a dozen, are not notable, and these days there are also self-published movies, which are also not notable. As the previous two editors note, a book or movie is notable if reliable sources, such as reviews, have commented on that. If you have a question about a specific draft book or movie article, we will try to answer it. (I tried to find it and didn't find it.) Then again, maybe you just came here to complain, or to propose a bizarre way to clutter Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
While the vast majority of self-published books are not notable, there are exceptions. Among them are Fifty Shades of Grey, The Joy of Cooking and the novel Spartacus. In almost all cases, successful self published books are later picked up by major publishing houses. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Death of Kings is not self-published, in any case. It's clearly notable, but the article should be sourced. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I have added a "Critical reception" section to the article, Cordless Larry, including quotes from three referenced book reviews published by reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Death of Kings isn't self-published, and is in article space rather than draft space, and appears to have been in article space for a few years, and I don't see the complaint about a lack of sources. Is the OP talking about this book, or about a different book that I can't find? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Cullen removed the tag after adding sources, Robert McClenon. The IP's reference to a "reviewer" probably reflects a lack of understanding of terminology used here rather than suggesting that it's a draft. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

My page named as Anuja Kapur has been deleted -- need suggestion

This is my first article in Wikipedia. It has been deleted due to violation policies G11 & A7 . I need the suggestion from the experts. I am sharing the sandbox URL here so that it can be reviewed . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anuja_kapur001/sandbox

If you can share any suggestion via video tutorial you are always welcome.Anuja Kapur 23:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuja kapur001 (talk • contribs)

There are multiple problems with the sandbox. If you previously made it into an article, I am not surprised that it was deleted. First, it is an autobiography, and the submission of autobiographies is strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest. The second problem is the peacock language. Such promotional language is common in autobiographies, and yours is no exception. (In fact, it is even more self-congratulatory than most autobiographies.) I don't understand the comment about a video tutorial, but Wikipedia is not friendly to those who view it as a way to promote themselves. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
please help me improving the sandbox version so that I could publish it without any deletion ...wondering for your kind help.Anuja Kapur 09:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuja kapur001 (talk • contribs)
No. Your sandbox draft is written to promote your own practice, which is not what Wikipedia is for. I don't know about other experienced editors, but my own opinion is that your sandbox version should not be "improved" to get it published, but, if you do meet the standards for biographical notability, the sandbox should be blown up and started over, preferably by someone who isn't associated with you. I won't tag it as G11, but, as it is, someone is likely to tag it (which will blow it up so that it can either be left nowhere or started over). (I don't think that it currently should be tagged for A7; it does make an arguable claim of significance.) But I still certainly won't accept it in any form at all similar to what it now is. In my opinion, you shouldn't be trying to publish anything that looks even a little like it. I will see what other experienced editors have to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Having problems with text formatting

I've been trying to use the < big > thing to make a text in an article bigger but I kind figure out how to do it without it affecting the text next to it.*Treker (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The Manual of Style explicitly discourages changing the font size. Can you elaborate as to what you're trying to do? I see in your sandbox it looks like you're trying to delineate a section for print sources? Consider using === Subsection headers === instead.

Like this

=== Like this ===

Or this, if you need smaller

==== Or this, if you need smaller ====
Intelligentsium 03:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I the problem is that the article already has a lot of headlines and I don't want to overcrowd it.
I've seen other articles use different size text and it's kind of anoying to me that I can't make it work at least even if I'm not going to use it in the article. :-/ *Treker (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
In HTML you need to </close> your tags. If you don't want to add headers, a MOS-accepted alternative would be to use the semicolon ; Like so
Like so
Intelligentsium 03:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Update: Oops, it looks like I was wrong, that usage is also discouraged by MOS. I revert back to my original recommendation of using subheadings, or else using tiered bullets
Ah ok. So it uses one of those / lines and then it works. Good to know at least. i was getting kind of frustrated not figuring it out. Thanks a lot.*Treker (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


Also, if neither of those are supposed to be used how come they exist at all?*Treker (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
These options are features of the Wiki software. Not every language Wikipedia uses all options, and each defines the style it wants within its own purview. Thus, the option for larger text sizes is there to use if a particular project decides to do so; however the English Wikipedia has decided not to.-- Elmidae (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks a lot.*Treker (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Article creating.

How do I make my own article and share it so it's available to everyone?i — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon 123 MLG (talk • contribs) 20:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Simon 123 MLG. Wikipedia:Your first article guides you through creating a new article. It is often a good idea to get more practice making smaller additions and corrections to existing articles to gain experience of how Wikipedia works before trying to start a new article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody know what's the red squiggly line (like word's for spelling) in Wikipedia?

Does anybody know what's the red squiggly line (like word's for spelling) in Wikipedia articles? Savvastheodosiou (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. The MediaWiki software doesn't spell-check articles, but you might get it if you have a spell-checking browser extension installed. Alternatively, perhaps you mean a dead link like this? We can help you more if you can provide a screenshot or a page where you see this. Intelligentsium 02:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not about spelling. I can't find the page. It was a 2-3 lines of text underline with a red squiggly line in an article and I couldn't understand it's role. 213.7.143.112 (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

in re hidden lists

Reading a page I created a few years ago I notice a repeated entry in the "References" category. When I tried to edit it it showed up only as a hidden list. I changed my preferences to show hidden lists: the list is still hidden. Is there a way for me to see it? Thank you.Davidreskin (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

References are created inline rather than at the end. If you edit the References header of an article, you'll only see {{Reflist}}. To find the reference, you need to go in the text next to where the superscript number is. Intelligentsium 03:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I see no superscript. There is a carat to the right of each number but it goes nowhere when clicked. Davidreskin (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Davidreskin, why don't you tell us which article and the ref number so we can see for ourselves? Rojomoke (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much. It's this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Field References 5 and 8 are identical. Davidreskin (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

When I click on the carats, Davidreskin, they take me up to the location of the inline citations as they should. Reference 5 follows "...and Carnegie Hall" and reference 8 "...soloist and concertmistress of the Stromberg-Carlson string orchestra". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cordless Larry. I guess I must have something blocked on my preferences, etc. since nothing comes up for me. And on the list I show references 5 and 8 as identical. I blame Gremlins. Davidreskin (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Davidreskin. A reference can be used several times without it repeating in the reference list by giving it a name when fully defining it once, and then briefly invoking it by name whenever it is used again. The wiki syntax is explained at WP:NAMEDREFS. Be careful since a tiny error will mess things up. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
You're right that they're identical, Davidreskin. Would you like me to fix that, or do you want to have a go yourself? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Cullen328, thanks for that. And Cordless Larry, that would be great if you could change it. I appreciate your help. Davidreskin (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I have changed it, and what was formerly two references is a single reference invoked twice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

reference ahead of print articles

I'm trying to reference a journal article that is ahead of print, and so does not yet have an issue # or pages. It has a link to the free full text for now, but I suspect it will be subscription only after some time. I'm not a complete newb and I'm sure this is answered somewhere, but I'd really rather spend more time on the content than another 30 minutes seaching (if you know what i mean :) ) Thanks

http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle.fullcontentlink:pdfeventlink/$002fj$002fcclm.ahead-of-print$002fcclm-2015-1031$002fcclm-2015-1031.pdf/cclm-2015-1031.pdf?t:ac=j$002fcclm.ahead-of-print$002fcclm-2015-1031$002fcclm-2015-1031.xml Electrogrl72 (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Electrogrl72, use the current link, update it when the publication details become known. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
ThanksElectrogrl72 (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Re-Declined Draft for Gyanendra Deuja

HI Teahouse,

Thank you for correcting my article. I have removed the Image page and requested the Proper image from the Person itself.

What else i need to change or edit on this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gyanendra_Deuja Please help and Thank you for your time on reviewing my article(Umeshdeuja (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't had time to review it in detail. I will comment that it needs heavy copy-editing for grammar, and I have put a copy-edit tag on it. Some reviewers would decline it because of the quality of the grammar. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Your article was accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

help with seeing a deletion and responding to another editor

Hello and thanks for being here.

I just received a message saying that information that I added to an entry has been deleted for potential copyright violation. When I look at the editing history, I can't see the material that was deleted. How can I find the right place to view this?

Once I take a look at this, I'd like to respond toe the editor, but can't quite figure out how to respond to the message on my talk page.

I've clicked around quite a bit and can't seem to get anywhere useful.

Can you help with either of these challenges that I'm having?

Thanks, AD64 AD64 (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright material such as you added to Sera Khandro cannot be kept anywhere in the Wikipedia system, so all versions that contained it have been removed by Diannaa. If you want to add the information again, you will have to refer back to the original source and make sure you recast it into your own words before proceeding. You can communicate with Diannaa by clicking here. Rojomoke (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response, and the specificity. I understand about the versions being completely removed for copy right reasons. I was just hoping to learn from the "mistake" as well as see what the topic was so that I could rewrite it. I appreciate the link to the talk page too. AD64 (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It was some content you added to the lead of the article, and it was copied from this website. Hope this helps. I can send you a copy by email, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This is all very helpful. Thank you for the quick responses and the helpful links. I'll activate Wikipedia email now and be in touch with you, Diannaa to get a copy. This then leads me to the next question of how do most editors work with this kind of situation? Do folks save various drafts somewhere so they can refer back? AD64 (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
According to the edit summary, AD64, some of what you added to the article was copied from the Rigpa Shedra Wiki. Any material you add, except for brief attributed quotations, must be your own original writing, which summarizes what reliable sources say about the topic. This website is a user edited wiki, so it cannot be a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This is all very helpful. Thank you for the quick responses and the helpful links. I'll activate Wikipedia email now and be in touch with you, Diannaa to get a copy. This then leads me to the next question of how do most editors work with this kind of situation? Do folks save various drafts somewhere so they can refer back? AD64 (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Most people avoid this problem by not copying from other websites in the first place. Make sure everything you add to the encyclopedia is thoroughly re-written in your own words before you post it. People who repeatedly violate copyright law are blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I hear the warning as well and take it seriously. I appreciate you all bearing with me for the learning curve and being so helpful. AD64 (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

To create a new page

I am trying to create a new page but if don't know how to. Please help me with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreeya.m.p (talk • contribs) 08:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Read -> WP:Your first article. Please.--... Koroshami (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Koroshami

District

How for districs? Have to add reference or not? Murbaut 06:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murbaut (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Murbaut. What specifically about districts do you have in mind? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Murbaut:Hello,I,m NOT much experienced editor at English (but at others) Wikipedia, Giving Reference is better than leaving, you HAVE to give Reference(s), because it,s more better. Please wait a little for more better response from Much EXPERIENCED editor's --Yes ji (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, not everything has to be sourced. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that all quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Personally, I prefer to just reference everything apart from the most obvious of statements. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I mean the districts / capital / district for local administrative system in country. MurbautTalk 21:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Murbaut. What information about these districts do you want to add? That material should probably be referenced, but it sort of depends on what it is. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

N

How to find New users of wikipedia? Yes ji (★talk★) 15:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Special:Log/newusers is a log of all new users created. However, what do you plan to do? Intelligentsium 15:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I plan no bad for new user, because i'm also new one. Yes ji (★talk★) 15:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you would plan to do something bad - however, because of the sheer volume of new accounts created, we don't usually welcome or attempt to interact with new users until they edit at least once. It might be good to get some experience yourself before trying to help new users - try sticking around this page and commenting where you feel you can. That way you can help new users and learn about Wikipedia from experienced users at the same time. Intelligentsium 16:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@Yes ji: As said by Intelligentsium and the top of Wikipedia:Welcoming committee, we generally don't post welcome messages to users with no edits. Most accounts never make an edit and then there is not much point in posting a message saying "Thank you for your contributions" with links to editing tips. Also, the message tells the users they can ask for help on your talk page but your account is only eight days old and you still have a lot to learn yourself. For example, you didn't subst any of the welcome templates as required at Template:Welcome#Usage so a bot is running around after you to make the subst and maybe confuse the users about what is going on. You also forgot to sign many of the posts. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes ji, just a reminder about PrimeHunter's message here, as you don't seem to be signing all of your welcome messages. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Listing bilingual films in filmographies

What is the proper way of listing a bilingual film production in an actor/actress' filmography? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Pavanjandhyala and welcome to the Teahouse! While filmography is outside my area of expertise, I did find article Shah Rukh Khan filmography where there is a bilingual example at Fiction film table for the Hey Ram entry. If that does not look correct to you, perhaps you might ask your question at the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers; or search further at Category:Filmographies. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Moving a draft to an article

How to move a draft to an article?PhysicsScientist (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't do so if it has no reliable sources, such as Greek Veerudu (1998 film). --David Biddulph (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I suggest you copy Wikisource and upload in article.... Lhealt (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Copying and pasting is not the correct way to move pages, Lhealt. See Wikipedia:Moving a page. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. Thank you CordlessLarry :).... Lhealt (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

My draft was declined several times

Hi, my Draft:Pankaj Naram was declined several times (reasons was that draft is not NPOV writing and it's lacking notability). How could I further improve article and show notability.

Also my images was removed from WikiCommons as not notable. E.g. I wrote: "Dr. Naram performed pulse diagnosis of Dalai Lama" and upload photo where Pankaj Naram is doing pulse diagnosis of Dalai Lama, why can't I use this photo? Buhram (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

To show notability it is usually enough to show that "multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject" exist. (There are many exceptions, but that is the main criteria.)
Breaking this down:
  • Multiple more than one, and preferably more than two
  • Independent not written by the subject, their close family, their press agent, etc.
  • Reliable sources generally something with editorial oversight. Not random blogs, you-tube channels, most self-published material.
  • Significant coverage a few paragraphs at the very least.
These are somewhat flexible.
As to the image, you certainly can use it provided you own the copyright and release it under WP:CC BY-SA 3.0. It may not be a good source as we have no way of knowing who the people in the image are unless we recognise them, as we will the Dali Lama.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

User talk

Hello more time, I want a quest. Maybe you know how make stylish user talk page? E.g User talk:Bgwhite? E.g book, etc? Very thank you, I will not remain indebted. Thanks.--... Koroshami (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Koroshami

@Koroshami: i (maybe) know what you,re asking, Maybe you,re asking about User page not Talk page making User page stylish, is a good idea, i also love this and i think you,re thinking about Templetes. Many users on wikipedia use templetes on their User pages, you also have to use.

On other hand you asked about User talk page, Talkpage is a page where we discuss and we talk to each other. Making Talkpage stylish is not a good idea (for me) but you add some templetes.--★Yes ji★ (★talk★) 10:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you give examples? Thanks.--... Lhealt (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Lhealt

How long after a new wikipedia page is created and verified will it appear in a Google search? Thank you

How long after a new wikipedia page is created and verified will it appear in a Google search? Thank you EdithWP (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That depends on Google's Web crawlers. I'm sometimes surprised to see that edits to existing popular articles appear almost immediately, and edits to well-established articles appear within a couple of minutes, but new articles will take Google's spiders longer to find. The process will be faster if the new article is linked from other articles or from other popular websites. Dbfirs 07:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This can never be predicted in advance, but in my experience, Google can be very quick to identify a Wikipedia article about a distinctive new topic. I have written well-referenced new articles about new topics, moved them to main space, and then continued researching those topics on Google. Sometimes, my new article appears high in Google searches within ten minutes of adding it to Wikipedia main space, if the title is unusual and distinct. On the other hand, if there are lots of other web pages devoted to the same topic, or a high degree of topic ambiguity, it can take days or longer for a new Wikipedia to be highly ranked. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
That depends on how Google runs things, which we have no control over. This blog post for what appears to be a PR business goes over the details some. Could be a few days, could be a month. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It used to be recommended to submit a new website to Google's crawlers, but this is now unnecessary because the crawlers will quickly find it from a single backlink. Dbfirs 08:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
For me it can appear in seconds. I have saved new pages and gone to Google for additional detail, and found my text there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

Multiple sandboxes

Is there any way I can have more than one sandbox? I want to work on more than one thing right now.*Treker (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, *Treker. Yes, you can have as many sandbox pages as you want. Open your current sandbox, and look at the top of the page where the URL shows. Place your cursor at the end of the URL, type a forward slash /, and then a name for the nrw page, like "Project 2" or something. Then hit "enter". You will get a message saying that the page does not exist, with an option to create it. Click that, and an edit window opens. Type something, save it, and you now have a new sandbox page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It worked. Thanks a lot. :) *Treker (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Just want to know how I should post?

Hello I know I am new and just want to clear up a few things about posting and editing. I put the pro day workout numbers on the Chris Jones (defensive tackle, born 1994) page and someone took them off right after. I just want to know if I did something wrong or if I could have done something different. Any help on the matter would be great! Thanks so much. NFLDraftRadio (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Yankees10, who made the reversion, may be able to explain what's happening. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC).
Welcome to the Teahouse, NFLDraftRadio. It looks like you are adding external links to various sports websites in the body of the article (we don't do that), as well as linking to the full URLs of Wikipedia articles, instead of wikilinking. I suggest that you start by studying Referencing for beginners. Some editors may object to your username as well, since it may imply some official NFL status. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Cullen and Rich, thank you so much. Yes after reading about ref for beginners I do see I should have done a better job in that regard. Anything else? Feel free to bring anything that was not gold standard. NFLDraftRadio (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Which are the best citation tools for a novice?

I have entered the citations into the article in my sandbox. Now, I need to prepare my bibliography which may be "cluttered" with too many references. Still, I must do it. I've looked through the list of citation tools and have tried some of them. But there are so many. What do you recommend for someone who wants to prepare a bibliography of 50 references in MLA style when she's been born and raised using Chicago? Also, would someone be willing to work with me on my talk page for a while? I've had some problems using reftool and named references when entering my citations and I'm confused about how to make the corrections. Other than that, all is well. And, many, many thanks to all of you who have provided answers to my previous questions. Drvalsummers (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This might be too basic for you but you can look at Help:Referencing for beginners for some help with Wikipedia's style of referencing. If you have a list of references for the article, you don't need to duplicate this list with a bibliography.
As for getting another editor to help you out, I think your best bet is to find a WikiProject that your subject falls under and post a request for help on the WikiProject talk page. You can see a list of WikiProjects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. You're more likely to find someone to help if you can find an editor who shares your interests. Liz Read! Talk! 11:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Drvalsummers, in an article you've started you are free to use any referencing system or style that you choose, and are under no obligation to conform with any other (though you are usually expected to conform to the existing system and style in pages created by other editors). If Chicago is your preferred style, use it; if the {{cite}} templates don't give you the results you want, you can format your references manually (which is of course quicker and easier if you know what you are doing). Nor is there any need to compile a bibliography for User:Drvalsummers/sandbox unless you want to – the references could (in my opinion) do with some links to the relevant journals and so on ({{doi}} numbers are good!), but they are fully satisfactory as they stand, and far above the general average for this encyclopaedia. I'd be happy to offer what advice I can if that would help – you could perhaps ask questions here as a first step. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference to item already in bibliography

I would like to add some reference sources to an article about an author that already contains the source in the bibliography. Is there a way of using that item, or should I simply create a new reference? Thanks. Suredev (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

You can name the reference, like so: <ref name="foo">{{cite bar...}}</ref>. From then on, you can refer to the same reference simply with <ref name="foo" />. See WP:REFNAME for more information. Intelligentsium 18:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, my problem is to refer to different pages in the same book. Rather than repeat the entire information, it would be nice to just have a shortened reference pointing to the base reference. I think that the 'sfn' construct would do the job, but this means I have to delete a few named references first. Not sure if that is the way to go about it, but I will experiment. Thanks for the pointer. Suredev (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Suredev, as a general rule it's not a good idea to change the referencing system of an article without first reaching talk-page consensus. A neat and easy way to add page numbers to named references is to use {{Rp}}. I've added a couple to Sheila Stewart (author) to give the idea; please feel free to revert/remove if that's not what you were looking for. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This is known as the ibid problem. While we don't want to replicate all the details of a book, just for a different page, we have to bear in mind that references can be removed from Wikipedia articles, so indirectly referring to a book via another references is slightly dangerous.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

Appreciate the answer. You have hit both things on the head: my issue and why it would be good idea to not link one reference to another. The latter is a very real problem in a collaborative project -- I have stumbled into it many a time while writing up things with co-workers. It is not so bad when you can just walk over and iron things out, but I can see the problems it would cause in Wikipedia. So, separate and independent will the references be! Suredev (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Second sandbox was "patrolled" ... what does this mean?

Hi. I created a second sandbox to hold some edits that I'd like to make on an entry. It holds a copy of the most recent section of material that I'm hoping to edit, copied directly from the article page.

I just got this email and I have no idea what it means. Is there something for me to do? Can anyone point me to some information?

"The page User:AD64/Sandbox 2 was patrolled by Username"

Looking on the history page for the sandbox and had no luck figuring anything out.

Thanks.

AD64 (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Relax. It's all good. Some of us have new article/pending changes patrolling rights. Carry on. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  19:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi AD64, all newly created pages are checked (patrolled) for illegal content or major breaches of policy such as child porn or copyright violations. Someone checked the page and "tagged" it as "OK". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the information and the good news. AD64 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Disagree/need help to improve after refimprove/tone has been added

Hi, I recently created an English language article on The Danish National Centre for Social Research. It has been tagged with Refimprove and Tone by another wikipedian. I've created a talk-page and asked some questions regarding the refimprove-suggestion. The tone-suggestion I just don't understand.

Will the tagger be notified that I've created a talk-page with questions? I guess he must have some opinion on the tone issue? Groennek (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wait a little, for ANSWER.Yes ji (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Groennek, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the editor who added those tags added the article to their watchlist, then they stand a good chance of noticing your post on the talk page, but if they didn't then it's unlikely. It might be worth posting a message on their talk page to get their attention. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Groennek, you can also "ping" the editor when you leave a question, as Cordless Larry and I did to you when we answered your question. There are several formats to do that, I find the easiest being: {{u|USERNAME}}. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 23:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for assistance on AfC submission by Jogi don

Draft:Hidaya Foundation I am asking for assistance because I have not found any lead story about Hidaya Foundation yet, might be it can be find someone other users, might be published in USA and else where, so I need their assistance in this regard to find citations , references of books, news, newspaper for Hidaya Foundation , and also expand this article so it can be soon shifted from draft to a full fledged article. Here are some useful news references to improve it This reference and This main link to news references ....Jogi 007 (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "lead story" in this context, Jogi don. Perhaps you mean something that would constitute significant coverage, as required by our notability guidelines? Incidentally, Draft:Hidaya Foundation appears to have been deleted yesterday, so it is difficult to comment further on the sources that you found. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
This draft article is requested for undeletion HERE..Jogi 007 (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Trouble changing email address

I'm trying to change my registered email address from a gmail account to a hotmail account. When I go to the preferences page and scroll down to the email options, I can see the section to put in the new hotmail address. When I do this, I get an email at the old gmail account with the subject "Wikipedia registered email address has been changed" and listing the the hotmail account as the new address. What happens next is odd though. The second email, with the subject line "Wikipedia email address confirmation" and with the link to confirm the new hotmail email address is being sent to the old gmail account. When I click the link, it takes me to Wikipedia and confirms the old gmail account, not the new hotmail account. I double-checked and there are no emails in the spam folders on hotmail so there is no way to confirm the new hotmail account. Perhaps you can help me navigate this? Thanks for your help. AD64 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

p.s. I've tried to do this three times with the same results each time. AD64 (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, AD64. If you do not get an accurate answer here soon, please try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Friendly nerds most likely to be able to help you tend to hang out there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi @AD64:. I'm an editor like you, and recently had the same problem. I eventually solved it, but failed to write down the exact steps. Here's what I think I did:
  • Change the email address to your new address.
  • Do not go to your old email address and do not click the link.
  • Instead, go back to the Wikipedia Preferences page. In the Email options section, there should be a note saying you haven't confirmed your new address, along with an option to send an email to your new address. Do that, and go to your new email address. There should be a message with a link; click on it.
I hope this works! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Traveling Man:. Brilliant! That did the trick. Thanks for your help. AD64 (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I have reported this bug at phab:T134246. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_479&oldid=1086089935"