Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 499

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 495

←

Archive 497

→

Check my page

Hi there, is there anyone can review or check my article before I submit it to review. I just don't want to get rejected againAsia Pcific Smart Cities 07:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlemingKL (talk • contribs)

I assume this is about User:FlemingKL/sandbox.

The lead section is empty. The first section with any content leaves the reader wondering what the article is meant to be about. Much of it is copyright violations of this page and this one. There are numerous direct external links, in contravention of Wikipedia policy. The section on Perth, Western Australia, is sourced entirely to a web page on Perth, Scotland; neither of them is in Asia. Maproom (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"Retrieved.." remark in "References" section of article obligatory?

Hi there,

is the "Retrieved <Date>" remark (based on the respective code - like "|accessdate=September 2, 2008 |date=September 2008" - )in the "References" sections of an article obligatory or just recommended?

Thank you Duke2016 (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not obligatory, Duke2016. In fact, with sources that are unlikely to change (eg newspaper archives online) there's little point in it. But for live websites it's desirable, because their contents can change without notice. --ColinFine (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Can one revert an article to a much earlier revision?

I was curious if there were a template for an article about a visual artist, for example where to put illustrations of their work. I found WP:artist biography article template, but unfortunately it had been appropriated by a young hip hop musician in Kosovo, and then by someone posting obscene stuff. The last legitimate edit was on 19 August 2015 by KylieTastic, whose talk page says she's on a wikibreak.

In addition to an answer about whether, in a case like this, I as an editor could restore the last legitimate revision in one step, I'd like someone 1) to keep an eye on this article and see that it doesn't keep getting misused, and 2) possibly improve it by adding some visuals.

Thanks, HarZim (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi HarZim and thank you for pointing this out! You can certainly revert back to a good version, no matter how far in the past it is, and I've done so here. I will keep an eye on it and hopefully others will do the same. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks--how do you revert it back several steps? HarZim (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, HarZim. You find the version you want to revert to in the page's history, and open that version; then save it. Make sure you give an edit summary explaining what you are doing. --ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, to revert a number of successive edits (not necessarily the most recent) you can select the old and new versions in the history, click on differences, then undo, again with an appropriate comment. This option may not be available if there have been subsequent changes affecting the same text. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

) 08:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)THIS IS BIG!!!!!!!!!!!!

149.254.56.74 (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)neeeds many eyes,,,,this article has existed as a propaganda piece using wikipedia bots and defintion to manipualte itd public perception,,,and its full of errors , out of date information,,,and needs everyone on the plnate to take a very good look at it,,, it needs to be concise,,,clear and free of the double speak this political organisation uses,,, my bias is clear,,but as soon as yu know the facts? i suspect yurs might be too,,, but the facts of the matter not behavu=iouural modification and nlp... which are the fact of the matter,,,wikipedia has defined them as a charity, this migth change under law, they have ebvn changed "common purpose" law to define themsleves,,,it used to mean criminal conspiracy in the uk...dont believe me check wikipedia....# 149.254.56.74 (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC) the artcile in question is on the politcal party masquerading as a charity behind a wikipedia definiton,149.254.56.74 (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

and if yu dont know whom im talking about... i suggest yu find out http:// commonpurpose.org /alumni/massive-online-innovation-community-moic/

https://moic. commonpurpose.org /hubbub/noaccess

http://www.cpexposed.com/about-common-purpose 149.254.56.74 (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC) had to break the links as they are already blacklisted and banned,,,,these are the political manipulators of wikipedia,,,idenitfying themsleves,,,trace the history of this article,,,trace a lot of politicised vandals and benders of the truth,

If you have concerns about Common Purpose UK, please raise them on the article's talk page. If you are in disagreement with other editors, attempt to resolve your disagreements by discussion there; if you cannot do so, follow the procedure for dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

i wouldnt know how and dont really use this site as an editor,,, i found out more information from their own website,,,,and its all been removed,,,, history of vanadlism has also all been removed from the talk page....its wikipedia eating itself,,,, i pooosted here? and the page shrank again,,,emoving allreferences to MOIC....wikipedia is a political machine absorbing and covering up pertinent information.... i want nothing to do with the place,,,,, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.74 (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That's OK with us, but if you ever decide to return, please remember that Wikipedia is not interested in your own opinion or viewpoint. We just report what we find in WP:Reliable sources. Do you have any connection with Plymouth & Devonport? Dbfirs 12:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

How to update infobox table on page

Hello. Hoping you can help. I need to update the Total Asset Number to $1,120.8 within the info box on the right of the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyster-Yale_Materials_Handling. I can't work out how to do this, it doesn't appear as an editable area within the edit page (from what I can see), perhaps it is pulled in from another source. Can anybody help please? Thanks! Michelle Michelle Wicker (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It is in the "edit page", as

| assets = {{decrease}}[[United States Dollar|US$]]867.0 million<small>(''FY 2014'') <ref name="2014 10-K" />

Do you have a source to cite for the updated figure? Maproom (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Gherla Holocaust Memorial Monument

I reviewed Draft:The Gherla Holocaust Memorial Monument and declined it because it had no references. Its author, User:Micuklein, then wrote:

I added the references that you requested. I have never submitted anything to Wikipedia before and I am a bit confused about the process.

At this point, one problem is that the draft says “We also researched the names of the villages from where Jewish residents were sent to the Gherla ghetto. We found 44 villages, their names are inscribed on the pedestal of the monument.” Wikipedia articles should never be written in the first person.

The Wikipedia submission process can be confusing to new editors. This Teahouse is a good place to ask questions about submission and about Wikipedia in general. The more specific your questions are, the more likely the answers are to be specific and helpful.

Do other experienced editors have comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

A few thoughts for Micuklein, and anyone else interested in this discussion: I am a Jew though I always strive to edit Wikipedia neutrally. My late father-in-law lost many dozens of relatives murdered in the Holocaust. They were among the close relatives and ancestors of my wife and my sons, killed en masse as if they were not even human. Personally, I am gratified at such memorial projects, but as a Wikipedia editor, I must set my personal feelings aside, and look at policy and guideline issues like notability. The funding for this memorial was organized by the The United States Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad. Therefore, that group's website is not an independent source for this memorial and cannot be used to establish notability. This memorial was dedicated only five weeks ago. Again, I commend the project personally, but I also doubt that it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article at this time, unless much better sources can be produced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why this entry is not considered notable enough,

There is a page with all the Holocaust Memorials and this memorial is notable enough to have a mention in Wikepedia. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_memorials_and_museums When 14% of the population of a city is exterminated it important enough to have a mention in Wikepedia. Again sorry for the clumsy approach, I have never done this before. MicuKleinMicuklein (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The original poster has put the "we" into the third person and has resubmitted. I will again ask the original poster what their specific questions are, since they say that they have questions. (I have posted a long welcome message with many links for them to read.) Do other experienced editors care to comment?

Cullen328, The United States Commission for he Preservation of America's

Heritage Abroad is not a private organization,it is a Unites States Government Agency and they supported they helped finance the project. The Commission Chair, Ms Lesley Weiss came and spoke at the inauguration. Also, the Israeli Ambassador was at the ceremony. Also, the chief Rabbi of Romania, the mayor of the city of the Gherla, the head of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Transylvania

the Hungarian consul and many other demnitaries were present at the inauguration. The Romanian state TV station broadcasted

3 shows about the monument and the event. I think this is notable enough for an entry in WikipediaMicuklein (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Micuklein: Other editors are giving you feedback about where you draft may not meet Wikipedia standards. You may have a different opinion. If your opinion isn't backed by the Wikipedia notability guidelines, which editors follow in reviewing new articles, you are likely to see your article rejected again. Spend some time studying the standards that are being pointed out to you and try to improve the article to comply. One detail I noticed is that you should remove the Wikipedia article reference. See WP:CIRCULAR Gab4gab (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I made all the suggested changes and resubmitted the page. Hope it looks better now.

Micuklein (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Proof-reading

As a teacher of English who often peruses Wikipedia for ideas on topics for (class) discussion, I would like to recommend my students and have them feel they are reading proper English while doing so. I often come across articles with mistakes and ambiguity, and so I'd want to make quick changes, listing these as "minor" errors, to improve readers' experience of both the language content and the standard of English while pointing out to creators of a given page any possible "blind spots".

What is the easiest and quickest way to go about this (without the author misunderstanding my sincere intentions)?

Stjohn1970 (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You can find Wikipedia's definition of a minor edit at Help:Minor edit. Remember also to give an appropriate edit summary. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Be Bold. Don't worry too much about pointing out errors to authors. Many won't care, some will appreciate your help, a few will object. At that point you can engage with them if you wish. But make sure you add an edit summary, describing why you've made the change. Rojomoke (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

But Stjohn1970, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy on National varieties of English. People sometimes "correct" what they perceive to be errors, without realising that the text in question is written in a variety of English that they are less familiar with. --ColinFine (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Stjohn1970, you might be interested in the Guild of copyeditors, a project by a group of language specialists aimed at improving the quality of language in articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, Stjohn1970, please recognize that it's not always easy to tell which previous editor made a particular edit without going through an entire page history. I am as much of a prescriptive grammarian as I suspect you are, and, as such, I would be quite miffed to receive a "nastygram" talk-page message dunning me for a grammar error on a page that I might have, in the distant past, created, but to which the grammar error was added many, many edits down the road. The nature of Wikipedia is such that not all editors keep a watch on articles they create, for a variety of legitimate reasons. I am sympathetic with your desire to teach your students the importance of proofreading, but to the extent you believe your mandate requires sending dunning messages to Wikipedia editors about grammar errors, I urge you to recognize that this is an enterprise that is likely to lead to a lot of people getting really upset and negating your positive contributions to the project.

Wikipedia does encourage people for whom English isn't a first language to make contributions (regarding, among other subjects, their own cultures that might not be well-documented in English-language sources). Much of the community appreciates that those of us who ARE native, non-dyslexic, detail-oriented English speakers will find ourselves doing some copyediting cleanup for, let's say, native Serbian and Guarani and !Kung speakers who provide valuable content, with some syntax and capitalization issues as an acknowledged and tolerated aspect of the bargain. Calling those non-native-English-speaking folks out on grammar mistakes in anything other than the most collegial, we're-all-in-this-together manner ("Your English is really quite good! Just so you know, though, native English speakers use either an indefinite or definite article before nouns in sentences like:...") is really going to be to the detriment of the project in the long run and I strongly suggest thinking twice about this idea. I know, it's frustrating to see errors, and it would be lovely if everyone here wrote perfect major-publisher-level English here. The world is a big multilingual place, though, and there are always going to be proofreaders. We clean up after the folks who are at least able to let us know about, say, stylistic nuances of Central Asian ceramics at all, when we might never have had that benefit if we mandated perfect English grammar and chased away those who can't quite get there. It's an ongoing school of diplomacy, but it has not only made me a better writer but a better professional in my own undisclosed field, because I have learned so many useful notions about why native speakers of other languages end up with particular misconceptions in English-speaking societies.

In any event, thanks for gritting your teeth and proofreading! Take care. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Sophie Doin

I reviewed Draft:Sophie Doin and declined it as lacking a lede sentence and references. On further checking, I was mistaken about the references. It has references, but they are not in-line or properly formatted. User:Doris Kadish then posted to my talk page:

I submitted an article entitle Sophie Doin. I understand the comments and can make the suggested changed. But before I work on it I want to know the following. My scholarly work on her is in respected venues. But I'm the main scholar who has discovered and written about her. There are 2 other respected scholars who have written on her, also in respected venues. But she is a minor author. Is that enough?

First, in my opinion, minor authors of previous centuries who have had some scholarly attention in the late twentieth or early twenty-first century are sufficiently notable for articles. I think that if scholars a hundred years later think that someone deserves their attention as a minor author, they deserve the attention of Wikipedia as a minor author. I am ready to accept the draft when the lede sentence and the references are improved. What do other editors think? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge needed

Aparoksanubhuti needs uncontroversial merge with Aparokshanubhuti please. I've seen WP:MERGE but, sorry, I don't have time to figure out how to do it myself. Thanks.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Shantavira, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions and learn how to edit Wikipedia, rather than somewhere to post requests. In this case, however, I think that because the first of those articles is unsourced, there isn't really anything to merge, so it should probably just be turned into a redirect to the latter. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Please review first editing :)

Hi, I have just done my first editing and would like someone to check I've done it correctly. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recyclebot&action=history

Pisa911 (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Pisa911, and welcome to Wikipedia! I believe your edit was a good one. You removed a statement citing an unreliable source that anyway did not support that statement, and replaced it with a claim that cites three better-looking sources. However (and this is true of almost any edit) there is room for further improvement – you supplied those sources as urls like this^[1] rather than filling out their details like this^[2]; all three sources you cited are blogs, which Wikipedia does not regard as reliable; and, trivially correctable, you put spaces between the three ref tags. Maproom (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

^ http://hackaday.com/2010/08/05/recyclebot-digests-milk-jugs-to-feed-makerbot/
^ Burgess, Phil. "Recyclebot digests milkjugs to feed MakerbrBt". Hackaday. hackaday.com.

Adding data without verifiable sources

Regarding Grosvenor Cup, the existing data by another author is derived mainly from 2 sources. In this instance, this trophy is still competed for, but our races and results are no longer published by external sources such is the drop off in interest. Our website is our only record. I have attempted to add recent results but the page was reverted as my information was unverifiable - even though I was present. How can I get around this Catch 22? Petechilcott (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Information about an organization published by an organization is a primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY. These sources are allowed in some circumstances, and are usually permitted in cases where the content is uncontroversial and there are no secondary sources available.

You may want to try to start a conversation about this on the article's talk page. TimothyJosephWood 20:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

An organisation's own web site can be treated as a reliable source for the winners of the trophies awarded by that organisation. But I am puzzled: the article does not link to a web site for "Grosvenor Challenge Cup", and I have failed to find one using Google. Maproom (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Johanna Geyer Carles - french relays championships?

Hi, I am writing about Johanna Geyer Carles on the Norwegian Wikipedia, but I have a question: On her Athle.fr profile it says that in 2014: CF Relais : 4x400m TC (1. Ind). Can anyone help me understand what this is? Is there at separate french championship in relays? Where can I find results from this? Ssu (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ssu, welcome to the Teahouse. Does fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/29 juin 2016#Johanna Geyer Carles answer your question? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm closing in, but it is difficult to communicate with them via Google Translate. I have found that the CF 4x400 is actually Coupe de France, and not Championnat de France, but I am unsure if I can write that she actually is french champion (national champion), or if the Coupe de France is just a national cup/competition, that does not count as a national championship. (I turned to en-wiki because they wrote that they don't answer questions in English...) Ssu (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the CF Relays is actually Champions de France de relais. Ssu (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hindi words

Hey, suppose I wanna use Ahimsa in an article. So should I use Ahimsa (non-violence) or non-violence (ahimsa)? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It probably depends on the context. What article do you want to use it in? If you just write "Ahimsa", there may be no need to explain the term, readers who don't know what it means can click on the wikilink. Maproom (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:TPConnects ‎

Hi, I have been twice asked by Raju Dubai on my talk page for a review of Draft:TPConnects submitted 8 June 2016‎. I believe it's probably notable enough, but not sure enough and hate to accept an article just to have it AfDed or PRODed... so just thought I'd post up and see if anyone else had an opinion. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Seek the assistance of any members if they have any opinion or can help me to tidy the references to be consistent to complete the process. You may also refer to this url http://www.thebeat.travel/post/2016/06/03/No-GDSs-Or-TMCs-Are-NDC-Capable-Yet-Based-On-IATA-Certification.aspx. Thanks in advance for any help Raju Dubai (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Raju Dubai - There is a common belief among new editors that it is very important for a new editor to create a new article as their contribution to Wikipedia. While creating new articles about notable subjects is very important, it is not the only way that new editors can help, and it is the hardest task for new or experienced editors. In this case, you, a new editor, are pushing quite hard to get your draft article reviewed. The Articles for Creation review process is backlogged. However, you have gotten two comments, one that the company does appear to be notable, and the other, from me, that the references need to be made consistent. You haven't made the references consistent, and, if you are asking for help in making the references consistent, that isn't obvious. If you need help with the references, this is a good place to ask for help with the references, but ask clearly for help; don't just ask to have your draft reviewed again. When you ask so persistently to have a draft reviewed, it causes some of the reviewers to think that you have a conflict of interest. You have said, in response to my question, that you do not have a conflict of interest. So be patient. In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. We are all volunteers. Please do not annoy us by asking too aggressively for another review. Thank you for understanding that you need to be patient (a little more patient than you have been). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The company seems notable enough. I did a few minor copyedits on the draft. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 00:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Have done the changes on the references to be consistent Raju Dubai (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Page deletion/recreation

Is there a way to get the content that was deleted when my page was deleted? I have resolved the problem and would like to recreate the page. Koglesby17 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Koglesby17: welcome to the Teahouse. In most cases, you simply have to ask, and it helps if you identify the name. If you are talking about Matt Pitt, unfortunately, that's one of the exceptions. We do not restore deletions when they are for copyright issues.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

My query

I am a little puzzled over something. I have just looked at the article on Scotty Moore, the late guitarist who played for Elvis Presley. On looking at the history of this article, I see that the number of viewers says Fewer than 30. Yet, the number of viewers who made recent edits is 32. How can this be? i shall appreciate any responses, thank you.Vorbee (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking @Vorbee:, an understandable question. The simple answer is that one can edit an article without adding to one's watchlist.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Vorbee: I moved your post from Wikipedia:Teahouse. Questions belong here on the /Questions subpage. Do you mean "Recent number of edits (within past 30 days) 32" at [1]? It doesn't say viewers and it has nothing to do with who watches a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for asking the question. Statistics are maintained on each article. This article has less than 30 page watchers which means that less than 30 people are alerted when a change is made to the article. An interesting statistic is that about 266 people view the page every day. Another tidbit of information is that about 250 other pages (articles and such) link to this article on Scotty Moore. It also looks like the number of times per day that the article is viewed is increasing. Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 21:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Scotty Moore is getting a burst of edits and an increase in page views right now because he died a couple of days ago, Vorbee. This always happens when someone dies, and there is nothing unusual about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

How does one create a page?

Do you have to be an administrator to create an article? Does the page need to be approved before being made? ColouredFrames (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@ColouredFrames: No and no. Any registered user can create a page. However, if this is your first time creating an article, I would suggest taking the page through the Articles for Creation process, as it ensures that you will write a good article. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ColouredFrames. You do not need to be an administrator to write a new article. However, it is difficult for a new editor to master all of our policies and guidelines, and write an article successfully. It may be wise for you to spend some time improving existing articles. Please read and study Your first article. If you write a new article, be absolutely sure that the topic is notable and the article thoroughly well-referenced. I recommend that you use the Articles for creation process, which involves review of your draft by experienced editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Robert James Cimasi

I reviewed Draft: Robert James Cimasi and declined it, primarily on the grounds that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, due to the length of the lists of chapters, articles, courses, etc. However, I also noted that the references did not appear to be independent. User:JessBailey33 then posted to my talk page:

Hi Robert. Could you clarify which sources do not appear to be independent of the subject? Thanks

The references include Amazon, which is not independent because it is selling his books. Some of them, while listing him, appear to belong to professional associations of which he is a member. Do other experienced editors think that I overreacted because of the sheer length of the lists, or is there agreement that better references are required? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that better references are needed, Robert McClenon and Jessbailey33. Moreover, the article reads like a CV, not an encyclopedia article. A complete list of publications, courses taught, etc. does not belong in the latter. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the references in the draft and see no significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. All the sources are from groups that he's a member of or affiliated with in some way. Those sources do not establish notability. The exceptionally long lists of his various accomplishments are unreferenced and completely inappropriate for a biography in an encyclopedia. It is mind numbing. My advice to JessBailey33 is to abandon the current draft and start fresh. Find coverage of this person in 100% independent, reliable sources. These are sources that have nothing whatsoever to do with Cimasi. Then, neutrally summarize what they say about him. I do not think that any experienced editor would approve the draft in anything like its current form, which is bloated, poorly referenced and not remotely an encyclopedia biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Continuum expression of the first law of thermodynamics

I found Continuum expression of the second law of thermodynamics (or Clausius-Duhem inequality) but I can't find Continuum expression of the first law of thermodynamics the equation is the following:

${\frac {DE_{t}}{Dt}}=\nabla \cdot ({\bf {\sigma \cdot u}})-\nabla \cdot {\bf {q}}$

Is this equation already exists in wikipedia!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophysics (talk • contribs) 15:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You should probably check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. I think you may fit in well there, and this may be too technical for your average Teahouse question. TimothyJosephWood 00:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The form that you have given for the first law is a simple mathematical expression and would not warrant its own article. I didn't find it in First law of thermodynamics. If you have a reliable source stating that that is a valid form of the first law, you may add it to the existing article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The original poster has created a stand-alone article on the continuum form of the first law of thermodynamics. I do not see any need, based on the one reliable source provided by the OP, for a stand-alone article, and have nominated the stand-alone article for AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirect Question

Now I'm confused. What is being redirected where with Clausius-Duhem inequality? Is the redirect going from a form of the name with an em-dash or en-dash to a form with a hyphen? Also, Continuum expression of the second law of thermodynamics appears to be going to a soft redirect and maybe should be edited to be a hard redirect and avoid confusion. Maybe this question is beyond the scope of this forum and should go to the Help Desk, but here it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The article Clausius–Duhem inequality has an en dash in the title; Clausius-Duhem inequality (with a hyphen) redirects to it. (See the ninth bulleted item at WP:POFR.) Continuum expression of the second law of thermodynamics originally redirected to the form with a hyphen, but that double redirect has been fixed by a bot. Deor (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Steven R. Tannenbaum

I reviewed Draft:Steven R. Tannenbaum and declined it as not providing evidence of academic notability. I said that while it appeared that the subject is notable, sources would be required. User:Marciadross then posted to my talk page:

I'm a first time article maker on Wikipedia. Is there such a thing as an editing course in writing and substantiating info on the site? I would be interested. Also, I'm trying to understand what kind of evidence is needed to make a verifiable claim about Steven R Tannenbaum: if he is a member of the Academy of Science, for example, should I do more than just say it and provide a link to that organization? Finally, are publication records encouraged in an article about a person? Or shall we supply more in the way of references?

First, I would advise that the author play the game known as WP:The Wikipedia Adventure. Second, I think that if he is a member of a National Academy or a fellow of a learned society in which fellowship is a notable honor, that may be a case where the primary source, the academy or society, is sufficient. I don’t fully understand the question about publication records. Overly long lists of publications are not wanted. However, publications by the subject are not sufficient as references to establish notability, although membership in an academy may be. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

At first glance, it appears almost certain that Tannenbaum meets our Notability guideline for academics criteria #3 and #5, in that he holds a named chair at MIT, a highly regarded university, and is an elected member or fellow of several prestigious academic societies. He probably is also notable based on how often his research papers are cited and may well meet several of the other criteria as well. Unlike most other topics, academics gain notability primarily based on the influence of their research, as opposed to independent biographical coverage. For such an academic, university bios and pages from the academic societies are acceptable as references, even though not independent. I suggest accepting the draft, and would advise Marciadross to improve the somewhat messy draft, modeling it on existing Good articles about comparable academics. The new editor should also read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Template editing

Hi, I can't edit TV episode templates (especially the plot section) in visual editing. Can I use some help? HamedH94 (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi HamedH94
I have moved your question to the top, as this page is "upside down" compared to all other Wikipedia pages.
Unfortunately, as explained at Wikipedia:VisualEditor, the VisualEditor has several bugs/problems with templates, although how to get around some of the template problems are explained at Help:VisualEditor/User_guide#Editing_templates. Like most long-term editors I learnt wikitexxt before Visual Editor was devised, and stuck with it - looking at the problems with templates explained at Wikipedia:VisualEditor, wikitext may be the only way to deal with your template problem. - Arjayay (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Great question HamedH94! If you can tell me the name of the template and the name of the article that you want added I can probably help you out. If you want to get into editing templates, unfortunately you might need to master the art of Wiki-coding. Not easy, it took me years Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 22:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, for example this article, the episodes section, changing the plot of an episode in the table. But as Arjayay mentioned, it's easier to edit the source code if you don't want to add a new episode. --HamedH94 (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

About references and use of photos

I had tried to make a reference to a youtube video where he had explained about his childhood and when I tried to save the reference the save would not work and the error would always be could not post edits not saved can I not link youtube videos? Thanks for help. Also, I was given permission by the owner of a photo to post it but when I am about to download the image it says may be due to copyright by youtube but it is a guys logo who I asked and he said I could use it but, I don't want to get in trouble for copyright so I'll make sure really quick. Butmynameismark (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Butmynameismark. I presume this is about Draft:Connor Scott (a.k.a the Lemon Gamer)? It is really helpful if you link to the relevant article in your question.

I will get to your questions, as far as I can answer them; but first I will say this. You have chosen to start your career as a Wikipedia editor by doing one of the most difficult tasks there is: creating a new article. Please read Your first article carefully, and understand that you need to start, before you write a single word, by finding places where people who have no connection with Scott have published substantial pieces about him. If you cannot find such places, then don't bother creating the article, because it will not be accepted however you write it (see WP:Notability and WP:Biographies of living persons). If you can find such places, then you can write your draft, based almost entirely on what these independent sources have said about him. You can fill in a little bit, of uncontroversial factual data like dates and places, from what he has said himself; but Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anyobdy says about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, or associates, say about them. And you should put in no information whatever that has not been published in a reliable source (which means, one published by somebody who has a reputation for fact-checking).

So, in my view, his own YouTube statements, and photos, are details to worry about later, when you've got a solid, well-referenced, neutrally-written, article. But to answer, as well as I can: Youtube on Wikipedia is complicated. Many videos on YouTube are posted without permission of the copyright holder: those are copyright violations, and Wikipedia's rules forbid linking to them. It looks to me as if the link you've put in your draft is to his own channel, so his Vlog is almost certainly OK as regards copyright; but the Warface Q&A vidoes look like copyright violations to me, because even though he is adding his own words, the images are copyright (I'm not an expert, but this is my opinion). But even if you can use his Vlog in that respect, it is a source that is not independent of him, so it can be used only for uncontroversial factual data such as places and dates: not for anything evaluative, promotional, or speculative. (I haven't watched it beyond the first minute or two, so I don't know what he does say) Please see WP:YouTube and WP:PRIMARY for more on this.

As for images, permission from the owner to use an image on Wikipedia is not enough. Normally, images must be released under a licence which allows anybody to reuse them for any purpose: the copyright owner - not the person who wants to upload - must follow the procedure in donating copyright materials. Whether he would be willing to release his logo on those terms, I don't know: you would need to ask him. Alternatively, logos are sometimes uploaded as non-free images, not requiring the owner's permission: Wikipedia requires that the use meet all of the criteria in WP:non free content criteria. I'm dubious that, in an article about a gamer, his logo would meet condition 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." But others may disagree.

I told you creating a new article was hard! --ColinFine (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, ColinFine I have already read the articles that you have posted... such as starting your first article and I thought that I would just keep this as a draft and never actually release it so that I won't get under any trouble at all so, no worries there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butmynameismark (talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC+9)

One thing to try and remember Butmynameismark is that Wikipedia is not intended to be a free web host. Drafts are allowed as long as they are being worked on and there is a reasonable expectation that they have a chance of someday becoming an article. Our goal as editors is to try and find ways to help build and improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia was never intended to be a substitute for a personal website, and drafts which have no reasonable expectation of becoming an article can be nominated for deletion per WP:MFD or tagged for speedy deletion per WP:CSD. There are alternatives to Wikipedia such as Wikia which have less restrictive policies and which may be more appropriate for your draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

"Current" meaning.

I finally clicked the 'contributions' heading and found some edit reports listed with a bold 'current'. Does that mean my edit is to be signed off on and/or should I revisit that edit to re-evaluate my edit? Sudaama90 (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Help:User contributions explains the "Contributions" page; "current" merely means that no other editor has edited the page concerned after your edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Experts' opinion needed

Hello fellas! Could yu please have a look at my first article and give me some suggestions and advices? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FlemingKL/sandbox Thank you so much ! Asia Pcific Smart Cities 05:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlemingKL (talk • contribs)

Hello, FlemingKL, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your signature appears to be broken, which is why your posts are being automatically signed by a bot. Can you check that "Treat the above as wiki markup" is not ticked in the signature section of your preferences? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

As for your draft article, FlemingKL, it is written like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article, it lacks an introduction explaining what the topic is, it lacks references and also appears to be a copyright violation. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

This question has already been asked, and answered, ~~below~~above. Maproom (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Organizational Anatomy

I reviewed User:Olkonol/sandbox/olkonol and declined it as reading like an essay. I also noted that the references did not establish that Organizational Anatomy is considered notable by scholars. User:Olkonol then posted to my talk page:

Hi, my article on Organizational Anatomy was declined for a reason "This draft does not contain references that establish that Organizational Anatomy is considered notable by scholars in management and organizational studies." However, all appropriate links are included on the bottom of the page, a book "Organisational Anatomy" is published by a scientific publisher, the book is already in universities libraries from the USA to Australia, and this concept and book is endorsed by leading academic and practical experts. I can't understand the reason for decline. Anticipating your feedback, Best regards, olkonol

I declined it for two reasons, for notability reasons and because it did not have the nature of an encyclopedic draft but an essay. Now that the author agrees that it is about Organizational Anatomy, I have renamed/moved it. Is the article meant to be about a book, about a course based on the book, or about the concept of Organizational Anatomy in general? The author says that the concept and book are endorsed by leading experts. If so, please provide independent references. The draft has no wikilinks to facilitate evaluation of the extent to which the topic overlaps with other fields. Do other experienced editors care to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon and Olkonol. The book, which seems to be written by the editor of the article, is self-published using Cambridge Scholars Publishing. The article says this concept is introduced by the 2016 book, so it is too soon to have an article. While there are reviews of the book, the topic needs to have been discussed in multiple reliable sources independent of the author, and this has not happened yet. While the article has references, it is original research at this point. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon and StarryGrandma! Thanks for response. Please suggest, what sort of reviews can be considered as independent? So far, Organisational Anatomy, which is not self-published and published in traditional way, picked up independent reviews from Small Business Trends (6.000.000 subscribers) and others; gained endorsements from reputable experts such as fDi Magazine and UKTI. Plus, multiple reviews on goodreads and amazon. Or should it simply wait for more reviews/discussions to be added? Thanks, Olkonol 109.252.44.227 (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon and Olkonol, the book has just been published. It is too soon for it to have become well-known (notable) in the Wikipedia sense. If the article is about a non-fiction book, it needs to have been out long enough to have had an impact on the field, or at least reviewed at the level of the major business journals, the Wall Street Journal, or the New York Times. Many, many business books get reviewed and endorsed as yours has without ever becoming notable. If the article is about the concept, the concept needs to become well enough known to have been written about by people other than the original author. Wikipedia isn't a means for making something known, it is for things which are already well-known. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

StarryGrandma and Robert McClemon, thanks for explanation. I far as I understood it will be possible to publish an article with more citations and discussions by notable sources in due time. Best regards, Olkonol109.252.44.238 (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding insertion of new picture in place of an old one

I am editing my advisor's wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenming_Hu. The page lists two issues, one related to 'This biographical article relies too much on references to primary sources' and the other one, 'This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification'. Could you please let me know why this page has these issues and what I may do to fix them.

In addition, I would also like to replace his old picture with a new one and add one more picture in the text. How do I go about doing that?

Thanks.

Adityamedury (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Adityamedury. I'm afraid that, like many people, you (and pobably Hu) have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia has an article about Chenming Hu. It is not his article, and it is not the business of him or his students to edit it: You (and he) have what we call a Conflict of interest: you are not absolutely forbidden to edit the article, but you are discouraged from doing so: rather, you should suggest changes on the article's talk page, for uninvolved editors to to apply.

To answer your questions: a thing to bear in mind is that Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a subject, or his friends, relatives, associates, or employees say about him. It is only interested in what people who have no connection to him have published about him. A Wikipedia article should be based close to 100% on what people who are unconnected with the subject have published about the subject. I haven't looked at the references in the article, but on a quick look, it appears that they are all from bodies he is affiliated with, or who have given him awards. It's fine that they are there, but there is a lack of independent references about him.

There are five paragraphs of text, with a fair amount of information about him; but apart from the awards, none of it is sourced to a published source, let alone an independent source. Information without a published source is of zero value, because a reader has no way of knowing whiether it is accurate (maybe it was mistaken; maybe it was correct and has been vandalised; who can tell?)

So the "primary sources" tag should be removed only when there are some significant secondary sources cited; and the "additional citations" should be removed only when much more of the content is cited to reliable published sources.

As for the picture: if you have a picture that you took yourself, so you are the copyright holder; and you are willing to release that picture under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA (which will allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose) then you can upload it to Wikimedia commons using the Upload wizard, and replace the name of the photo file in the article (you need to get it exactly right as to case, punctuation, and file extension). If somebody else holds the copyright it's a bit more complicated: see Donating copyright materials.

One final point: I have removed a couple of examples of peacock language from the article: articles should never ever use evaluative language (such as "seminal" or "prestigious") unless they are directly quoting an independent reliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Creating a new article about a welfare organization

I have been trying to create the article about alamgir welfare trust international, a welfare organization 22 years of age and serving humanity. Both times i made an article, it was nominated for speedy deletion. I don't intend to advertise it through the wikipedia page. Infact i just want to have the basic information about the organization on that page which can provide the statistics and unbiased overview. How can i make sure that my article doesn't get deleted?Jareer Shamsi (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

If you use the Articles for Creation process to have the article reviewed by experienced editors, it is unlikely to be speedy-deleted because it will be declined (sent back for improvements) if it isn't accepted. Read about the AFC process. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

new editor

hi guys i just joined wikipedia an hour ago can you tell me an amateur page to edit. but easy? CobraBlueDude (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

CobraBlueDude, Offhand, I can't think of any "amateur" pages to edit. However, I'd recommend clicking the random article button and reading the article that comes up. Chances are, it'll need editing. Easy problems to fix include typos, no punctuation, or informal wording (such as use of "you" outside of quotes). You can do a lot of good making such small corrections. Another thing you might want to look at is the WP:WikiProject Directory. Most of them will have some kind of cleanup listing. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings CobraBlueDude – A place to find more Wikipedia articles to be improved is at the Community portal, Help out section. The grid there shows nine different types of updates on a variety of articles, and that page is frequently updated. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Article For Creation

I want to create an article about Jinnah Jam-e School and College and wikipedia didn't accept my draft Saimali7 (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Saimali7, that is true, but the reasons Draft:Jinnah School and College was rejected were clearly stated - "Needs more references and more content"
Statements such as "JJSC has completed its academic excellence" are unreferenced, and the article should tell us something about the school - how many pupils are there? is it mixed or single-sex? and any other important facts - not just the fact that it exists. - Arjayay (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Saimali7 – For additional content, it is useful to include mention of notable Alumni, Professors; awards the school may have received; special subjects taught, etc. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Formatting of added signatures

Dear friends, I need help in a formatting matter. I added the signature of Günter Schabowski to his "box" and everything seems to be well formatted and find. And I previously added the signature of Jane Russell but can't get it formatted right: Her signature (as well as the word "signature" itself) stay in the center. Can anyone please teach me how to fix that? Thanks in advance, Alex. GeoTrinity (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the different behavior is because one is "infobox Officeholder" and the other is "infobox person". Maproom (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay but how can that be fixed then? Sigh. --GeoTrinity (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@GeoTrinity: Infoboxes often make different choices. You can post a suggestion at Template talk:Infobox person. Looking at the infobox history, it seems the current placement was made without discussion in [2]. An old discussion at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 11#Signature centering lead to a change the other way.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --GeoTrinity (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

why my page uvaraj sankagiri was deleted?

I have created a page of my leader about his biography and activities...but it was deleted..how to undelete this page and i need that page back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghulmurugavel (talk • contribs) 17:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Raghulmurugavel. I'm afraid you are having the same experience as many people do who try to do one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia - creating a new article - before they have learnt how Wikipedia works. Further, if he is "your leader", then the task is doubly difficult for you, because you have a Conflict of interest, which is likely to make it hard for you to write sufficiently neutrally.

As I am not an administrator, I cannot look at any of the three attempts (all in the past week) to create this article - I am guessing that they were all by you - but two of them were deleted for the reason that each was an "Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject".

I suggest you study Your first article carefully. Be aware that Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a subject, or their friends, family, associates, students, employees etc say about them: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with a subject have published about the subject. So in order to write an article about Uvaraj Sankagiri, you would first need to find several articles or sections of books about him, written by people who have no connection with him; and base the article pretty well entirely on those sources. As somebody with a COI, you are discouraged from writing about him, but if you use the Article wizard to create a draft, you may have a chance of getting such an article accepted. Remember that no article should ever use evaluative language unless it is quoting an independent source. Good luck. --ColinFine (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Is my work correct.

Hi, I just want to ask if I did my contribution correctly. Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Assi21.

Another one, how long will I wait for wiki's approval?

Regards Assi21 (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That draft has a promotional or hagiographic tone as well as having no reliable independent references. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It is also on your user talk page, Assi21, which is where other editors communicate with you and not the place for an article. It therefore won't be considered for "approval" in its current location. Please see Wikipedia:Your first article for advice on how to get this right. Writing articles from scratch is a tough task for a new editor, however, so you might consider gaining more experience through editing existing articles before you try to start a new one. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like an admin deleted the page because Wikipedia can't be used as a webhost. If you want the text from your page back so you can change it, you can ask the deleting admin here for advice on what to do. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

[1] ttp://hackaday.com/2010/08/05/recyclebot-digests-milk-jugs-to-feed-makerbot/

[2] Burgess, Phil. "Recyclebot digests milkjugs to feed MakerbrBt". Hackaday. hackaday.com.

[1]

[2]