Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 603

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 600

Archive 601

Archive 602

→

How is my article not notable enough?

Hello,

Can someone help me with my article? It has references from the New York Times, Huffington Post, the New Yorker, Rapid City Journal, and Sports Illustrated to name a few. I have referenced them in the article but it is still claimed not to be notable enough?

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

Naskgetty (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Naskgetty. The draft is currently submitted for review and has not been reviewed since it was declined and then you added more citations. Please note from the edit history my suggestion of fixing the attribution of the naked URLs, into transparent citations. I did the first three as an example for you. Doing so will greatly improve the article and make it much more likely to be accepted upon review. See Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:CITEHOW. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the article to the main space, it clearly has references to in-depth, reliable sources, so passes WP:42. Making it languish in draft space for editing concerns is unnecessary at this point. Please continue to improve the article so it meets the high standards we expect. --Jayron 32 15:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jayron32, I don't wish to make a big deal about it, but, when you simply move a pending AFC draft, instead of going through the accept routine certain "finishing touches" were left undone. The accept routine of the AFCH script automagically cleans up the AFC templates and messages, it also facilitates categories and wikiprojects to be added easily (including the AFC project tag). The script also generates a notification message posted to the submitter's talk page informing them about the acceptance. In short, doing a procedural accept results in a "neater" more complete new article and the message to the submitter (hopefully) results in a happier contributor. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I forgot how convoluted being a new user was becoming. WP:SOFIXIT should probably be replaced by WP:BURO as official policy. --Jayron 32 16:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Jayron32, that was a tad pointy, don't you think? You boldly moved the article to mainspace, and Dodger67 politely told you various reasons why it is usually done in another manner. They did not disparage you, they did not revert you, they did not require you to use the preferred method or stop such moves. The three possible answers are "thank you, I will keep that in mind", "bleh, too complicated for me, I will keep doing it my way" and "you are wrong, because (...)".

Also, moving AfC drafts into the mainspace is not a task for new users, so the first part of your reply is off the mark (even if - obviously - no process should be made harder than necessary, new users or not). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Forcing new users to jump through the AFC process to create articles and then providing little hand-holding through the process, but instead templating their hard-worked drafts with terse, arcane templates telling them it was rejected is what is driving new users away. AFC would be useful if people spent time working with new users to help bring their articles up to standards. It's currently no more friendly than the old process, which was to let them create the article, and then have it deleted. --Jayron 32 16:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jayron32 - I realize that this opinion may be contrary to Wikipedia politically correct doctrine, but I am less concerned about the need to make it easy for new users than about the need to maintain quality control over article space. AFC would be, in my opinion, be more useful if there were less crud coming in both through AFC and through NPP, so that reviewers had more time to work with the few new users who want to learn how to contribute constructively. Most of what comes in to AFC and much of what comes in to NPP is crud. There are three overlapping types of crud. There is promotional crud by editors who want to use Wikipedia to promote something, usually but not always commercial. There is clueless crud, coming from editors who simply don't know what Wikipedia is, and may or may not be capable of learning. Third, there are contributions by new users who don't yet know what is a reasonable submission. Unfortunately, only the submitters of the third type can be helped, and only they are worth the time of the reviewers, and most of the time of the reviewers is spent on the first, second, or first and second types of crud. In any case, I agree that your sarcasm toward Dodger67 was unnecessary, and that Dodger67 was doing at least as much to try to help new users as you were (by being snarky at a comment about helping new users). Just being snarky at the reviewers doesn't help. I realize that I may have violated political correctness which says that helping new users is the single most important thing (when I think that quality control is even more important). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Those are not mutually exclusive. Quality control IS helping new users, thats what The Teahouse is supposed to be about: doing quality control by empowering new users to become better editors. --Jayron 32 10:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Tag for a merge?

Yesterday I tagged Operation Overlord and Invasion of Normandy for a merger proposed in December, but I've discovered that the two articles were previously split from one extremely long one. Now I want to remove the merge banners and let the discussion take a back seat again, but should I leave them in place? I could see the merger/split discussion going on very often, unnecessarily leaving the banners in place at the tops of the article pages forever. RM2KX (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Book article seems not within Wikipedia guidelines

Hi there would someone be able to check the book article: "Cartwheels in a sari"? The entire paragraph is pretty much copied almost word for word from reference 1. From the words 'Tamm characterizes...'until the end of the line is completely copy and pasted from reference 1. Also reference 3 is a blog and product purchase page to sell the audio book. Not sure if a blog/sales page is allowed as a reference? Thanks. Maryanne881 (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I have removed the infringing content, revdeleted, and left a standard note on the talk page. (There's no one to warn, as the user who placed it has been inactive since 2014.) Maryanne881, finding and removing copyright violations is important work. Thank you for finding this. If you want to help more, I wrote a small guide with some step-by-step instructions at Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

How to add former name

Please tell me how to add former name in parametre of a school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radoan Sharkar (talk • contribs)

Hello, Radoan Sharkar. I'm not sure what you are asking. I guess it is something about Government Science College Attached High School. Where are you wanting to add the former name? And what to you mean "in parametre" - do you mean in the parameters of the infobox? If so, the answer is that Template:infobox school does not have a paramter for "former name", so there is no way of adding it to the infobox. (Though I suppose there is nothing to stop you giving the name as "Government Science College Attached High School, formerly ....").

If you just want to put it in the text, then that is straightforward, and is the usual way of handling such things. If you mean, put it in the name of the article, then no, you shouldn't do that (but you could create a WP:redirect from the former name).

One last point, which is not directly relevant to your question: in my view, the order of importance of the parts of an article are, in order, first the references; second the text; third the infobox; fourth any images. I always prefer to see people working on the more important bits first. --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

When can "original research" be used?

For instance, if I have personal knowledge of someone's marital status, and the wikipedia about that status is incorrect, and there are no "reliable" sources to back up my own personal knowledge, what can be done? 162.245.145.28 (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Great question! First, you might consider whether the subject's marital status is relevant to the article. In articles about an individual, it usually would be relevant; in ones that deal only peripherally with the individual, it might be considered extraneous information and fair game for removal. (If you were to remove it as extraneous, I'd be very careful to leave an edit summary saying so. Removing content without explanation is rarely a good move.) If the marital status is relevant, you might leave a note on the talk page of the person's article, noting what you know to be correct and asking for help in finding a reliable source. It's also worth saying that if the marital status currently listed isn't reliably sourced, it can be tagged or even removed on that basis alone. (It's better to tag first and remove after a reasonable interval, if no one has provided a source.) If all else fails, you might contact the person in question and advise them to contact Wikipedia's Volunteer Response Team. Good luck! Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 13:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Rivertorch, IP editor, but wouldn't tag unsourced information about marital status but rather remove it straight away, as specified by WP:BLPSOURCES. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

On reflection, I think you're right. Marital status isn't contentious per se, but if it's disputed then it immediately becomes so. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 14:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Where the existing source for the martial status is reliable, but you don't have a source showing the change you think you know, instead of removing the statement and source, it might be appropriate to slightly alter the existing statement to make it correct—by making it past tense, adding a year, adding "as of", etc., thereby bypassing the desire to add verboten OR.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

To answer the question specifically, and rather bluntly: original research is never allowed in articles. What counts as original research and what doesn't, well that's another question. To find out, you should read the policy, as this is one of the most important and elaborate areas of Wikipedia. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I completely endorse what Finnusertop said. The basic nature of an encyclopedia is this: We do not write about a given subject, we write about what is written about a given subject. That being said, if you are only using your personal knowledge to remove unsourced material, that is fine...however, use an edit summary that does not mention the fact that you know this is wrong. Call it "unreferenced" or "unsourced". Neither what you know, or what I know, matters at all here. John from Idegon (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Lots of doubts

I've completed the page but now how can I submit that, where can I find the link for submitting it? DhanishaB (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey DhanishaB. I readded the AfC banner to your draft. You should now see the submit button toward the top of the page. TimothyJosephWood 20:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, there's one more query this is the first page I've created and I'm still learning and when I submitted it last time it showed some errors I did my best to correct them but is there any place where I can get it checked before submitting it again? DhanishaB (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Submitting the draft is a request for checking it. It's like saying "OK, I think my article is now ready for main space, please give me feedback if not." Some drafts get submitted many times before they're acceptable. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

How to be sure another editor or administrator sees my post

I have got really confused about 'pinging'. I thought copying in a user Kennywpara (talk) would do it. If I wanted to 'ping' someone, including an important message for an administrator what is the protocol? There aare LOADS written about this but its not clear and I keep getting error messages. If a user was called XYZ, would I ping them using @XYZ: with 4 tildes to identify it? Thankyou Kennywpara (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|XYZ}} would do it, Kennywpara. You must sign your signature at the end of the post by typing four tildes. John from Idegon (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou John.Its been driving me mad!! Kennywpara (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara. You might find some of the information at Help:Fixing failed pings clarifying. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again Fuhgett..... Good advice. Kennywpara (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

William H Bell

A draft I have been working on, Draft:William H. Bell (fl. 1860s) has been rejected twice for not having enough sources. Its not that I'm giving up but I would like to know how many sources you would suggust. Feel free to help out as well22mikpau (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, 22mikpau, and welcome to the Teahouse. Look at the very similar question below: #Grateful for input on notability references – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

No, 22mikpau, it was not rejected for "not having enough sources". It was rejected for not having good enough sources. Adding more low-quality sources will not help at all. As you were told by both reviewers, Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Maproom (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, 22mikpau. You might want to take a look at WP:1E. If someone is known for being a participant in an event, even one of great importance, but not for much of anything else, then they are not notable. Non-notable subjects do not get articles here. To give a more contemporary example, over three thousand people died on 9/11, unarguably one of the most important events in American history. However, very few of those people have biographies on Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Rename a page?

I just created my first page and submitted it for review, so I'm a newbie. There's a warning on the review box stating that the page redirects to another page. Should I rename the page? Not sure how to proceed... Help much appreciated in advance - thanks! Atomic247 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Atomic247! You do not need to worry about that. The AfC volunteer that gives your page its final review will take care of that. At this point you need be much more concerned with the quality of the sources on your article. Most are primary. More secondary sources, completely independent of the subject of the article or anyone he has ever worked for, that discuss him in detail are needed. John from Idegon (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

doubt about verification option

this is the first page I've created and I'm still learning to create one error free but till then I need help as when I submitted it last time it showed some errors I did my best to correct them but is there any place where I can get it checked before submitting it again? DhanishaB (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You can either resubmit it, or I can take a look if you wish. What were the errors? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DhanishaB.The draft in question is Draft:Vishnu Ramdeo. In my opinion, your draft is not ready to be resubmitted. A Wikipedia article should be about a single topic. Your article seems to be about three separate topics: a person, a school and an international exchange program. This is the wrong way to structure a Wikipedia article and perhaps you should be working on three separate articles. Select one discrete topic for now. In addition, your draft is filled with unacceptable promotional language. Please read and comply with the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. A Wikipedia article should summarize what reliable sources say about a topic. Many of the statements that you make in your article are not supported by references to reliable sources. Either you must provide references to reliable sources for these statements or they must be removed. Your references are poorly formatted. Please read Referencing for beginners, and format your references properly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Threat on article talk page to be banned from editing. Please help.

Hello please could an editor help me understand the accusations against me from another editor over a very simple properly referenced line of information on the 'Sri Chinmoy' page that I entered. It was a simple line about education. It was reverted twice in different places in the article and then discussed on the talk page in the last few days. I was told by attempting to insert this line it was a form of "promotionalism", an attempt at POV and furthermore I was threatened to be banned from further editing the article if I continued trying to enter what I consider to be documented and fairly neutral information. Could someone tell me if apparently what I was doing is "promotionalism" according to Wikipedia guidelines? It never entered my mind that a simple line like that could possibly be considered that. My intention editing on that article is certainly not to 'promote'. Thank you for your help.Maryanne881 (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello I just read the message that the user posted to your talk page and I didn't see anything about them wanting you to get banned (or as we call it here on Wikipedia blocked so you should be okay with that. I haven't checked your edits yet so I can't say whether they were promotional or not. Also maybe you could try explaining your edits to the other party so they can better understand your intent. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 01:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello the other editor did not put a message on my talk page, there was a discussion only on the article in question 'Sri Chinmoy' talk page. I think the article talk page and the edits I did do need looking at to understand my question. Thank you. Maryanne881 (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Is my name bad?

Will it get me banned? Shaka Do Thang (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shaka Do Thang. It is not likely that you will be blocked for your username. However, if you continue vandalizing articles, as you have done at Rayman Origins, you will be blocked. You have been warned. Stop the vandalism now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

While I was looking at your account and writing the answer above, you vandalized Michel Ancel. Stop your vandalism NOW. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This editor has been blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on my first Wikipedia editing

I'm a new editor. Just made edits to an article on Adam Cohen (journalist). Would appreciate any feedback on my first effort.

Hersei1960 (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Hersei1960. It appears your additions are sound. The only problem I have is the removal of the stub tag, as this article is still a stub. It lacks any information at all on his personal life. Also, the image should probably be in the infobox. It appears tho, you may have a connection with the subject of the article. You need to read WP:COI and follow all its directions as to best practices, and if you are compensated for your edits, pay particular attention to WP:PAID, as those requirements are mandatory. John from Idegon (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Stub-ness is a fairly subjective assessment, but I don't think this is one. Cf. the criteria here Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It is rare that I disagree with John from Idegon, but this is one of those rare occasions. A stub is defined as "an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." I feel very confident in saying that this article is not a stub and have rated it "Start". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

We get to teach the new guy another lesson, Cullen328. People disagree here on Wikipedia all the time. As a matter of fact, it is part of how Jimbo designed Wikipedia. Disagreement is how we determine the truth when sources vary. In this case, however, I was mistaken. I had the criteria for start and stub confused. I rate a lot of political geography articles but few bios. Please remember, Hersei1960, if you remove the stub template from an article, remember to change the assessment on the talk page header too. Happy editing all. John from Idegon (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all. No, I did not get compensated for any edits! And thanks, John from Idegon, for the advice on removing the stub template -- that is, to remember to change the assessment on the talk page header. Didn't know that! I really appreciate this feedback!

Hersei1960 (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

My article continues to be declines how can I fix this?

Hello, I was hoping someone could assist me in understanding how I can improve upon my article which has been rejected. I'm afraid I have tried but failed several times to improve upon my article in order for it to be accepted. Id be interested in understanding what it is specifically I can do to make this possible. Suggestions or examples of potential content I might include into my article on MICHAEL SAPIR for it to qualify. I would be most appreciative for the help. My apologies if this had caused any trouble, I thank you for your time.The Brook Shelf (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What were the reasons given for the decline? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: See Draft:Michael Sapir for the reasons.

@The Brook Shelf: I suggest cleaning up the formatting, which is a horrible mess. Your first few lines should go into an infobox. See {{infobox person}} and insert that template before your first paragraph (I just did that for you), filling in whatever details you can find. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

:::The next thing is to try and find notable third party sources that are independent of the subject and can indicate the notability of the person. A Google news search might be a good place to start. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC) See Anachronists comment below --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

There are some good sources in there already, one from the Washington Post that gives significant coverage. I'd try to eliminate press releases and trivial mentions, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight and adding a template for me. The comment left in all 3 cases of decline is "Too suggestive of an advertised business profile." Im confused as to how I may avoid this comment again. Do I need to add more content about the subject? Or perhaps the problem is the the way the information is presented? is the subjects Notability questionable? Thank you again for your time and patience in helping me with this matter. The Brook Shelf (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have moved this message, as it had been misplaced in the section above.--David Biddulph (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Patrolling files

I want to start patrolling new files Special:NewFiles. After nominating this File:Mother Teresa with Manmohan Singh.jpg, I want to ask for some guidelines and tips from editors having experience in patrolling newly uploaded images. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Spidey, this is probably not the advice your looking for, but I would recommend popping over to commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:NewFiles. Commons overall have a much better interface than Wikipedia does and from what I can tell a higher volume of new files. You may want to check out Commons:Deletion policy, and definitely enable all the fancy features in your settings (Google search button, and all the deletion tagging options), but once you get the hang of things on commons, the only real difference with Wikipedia is non-free content, which is its own can of worms all together. A big plus though is the opportunity to spot great files from around the world and incorporate them into the encyclopedia in basically real time. TimothyJosephWood 14:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

While Timothyjosephwood is right about Commons' greater volume, there are differences in file patrolling there and on Wikipedia that might have differing preferences. One example is non-free images which on Commons are never allowed (i.e. always deleted) but on Wikipedia they need to meet WP:NFC. In fact, these can be quite interesting cases to evaluate.

Marvellous Spider-Man I'd suggest you take a look at WP:FFD where complicated cases are brought. That teaches you what kind of image issues are straightforward and which are more nuanced. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

How do you link things into a table?

If you head over to iRacing.com, I am in the process of creating links for all the tracks that are over there. I have figured out a painstaking way of linking these, by saving a url to a random word, then quoting it (it's confusing the way i do it). Is there any easier way of quoting things to a table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascar Painter (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nascar Painter, welcome to the Teahouse. It appears your question is not about what Wikipedia and html calls a table. I see you mainly use VisualEditor and have been wikilinking a list by placing [[...]] around each item [1] (you may have done it differently in VisualEditor). I don't know a tool specifically for this. If you know regex (see also WP:REGEX) then you can do this and many other things with some work (may require experimentation to get it right). Some text editors have regex. It may depend on your browser and preferences but for me the source editor in Wikipedia also has regex. Make a source edit and click "Advanced" above the edit box and then click a search and replace icon to the top right. To wikilink a list where each line starts with an asterisk and maybe a space:

Search for: \* ?(.*)
Replace with: * [[$1]]
Checkmark "Treat search string as a regular expression"
Click "Replace all"

Most users don't know regex and then the search and replace strings look cryptic. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

How do the TH popout boxes work?

I've been editing WP since 2012, but I figured this would be the best place to ask. I'm quite intrigued about the way that the "Ask a question" button and the "Join this discussion" link in section headers create a pop out box where people can write their question. How is this done? I tried looking in {{TH header}} for a clue but couldn't find anything. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 17:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi InsaneHacker. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option Enable the Teahouse "Ask a question" feature. MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition specifies that it's enabled by default and loads JavaScript from MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse.js. It checks the page name and loads MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js here. It relies on JavaScript running in the user's browser so users without JavaScript cannot use it. The gadget also uses CSS from MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse.css. Only administrators can edit pages in the MediaWiki namespace so you cannot make something similar in other pages without administrator support. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:Thank you for the quick reply. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 18:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the difference between References and External Links

I see on some other pages that there is a list of categories at the bottom of the page. I'm thinking that these are other search areas that you might find this person? But not sure. This is my first time creating a pageMlgendron (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello,Migendron. References are pointers to external reliable sources which directly corroborate information in the article. They may be online, and if so, will usually have a link; but they do not have to be. The important bit of a reference is the bibliographic information which will in principle let a reader obtain the source (for example, through a major library). If a link is provided, it is a courtesy to the reader, not an essential part of the reference. See Referencing for beginners. References should normally be to reliable published sources.

An external link is just that - a link to something outside Wikipedia, other than as a reference. There is no restriction on what you may link to, except that we do not allow links to sites that infringe anybody's copyright (such as some YouTube videos, for example). But there are tight restrictions on the circumstances in which it is allowable to include an external link in an article: this is explained at WP:external links.

A category is a grouping of articles in Wikipedia. You add an article to a category by putting the category link (eg [[Category:France]]) somewhere in the article, usually at the bottom. There is no technical restriction on the categories you can add to an article, and you can make up new ones by just using them; but in practice, some editors work hard to maintain a well-structured set of categories and subcategories, so it is best to follow the guidlines at WP:Categories. --ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

getting article off "being considered for deletion" notice

I created a page for Beatrice B. "BeBe" Magee but did not immediately enter references and citations so got the "article being considered for deletion" notice. I have now entered 40 citations, references, links so think it should be good. How do I get that warning removed?

Also, I think I should remove the "BeBe" nickname from the title. What is the standard practice or nicknames? and if I should remove it how do I do that?

Clquinn (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Clquinn. When an article is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, a discussion takes place to determine whether it should in fact be deleted. That discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatrice B. "BeBe" Magee, and will probably run for seven days, or until consensus is reached. I suggest making your case for keeping the article there. You will be more likely to succeed if you engage with the nominator's rationale for deleting the article, and if you demonstrate that you have addressed their concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Submission isnt notable enough for stand alone page, how to submit it to an excisting page?

My submission wasn't notable enough to have its own page on Wikipedia but I was wondering if I could submit it to a currently existing article. The information is all correct and real it's just not popular enough by itself. Bruinsruletheworld (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Without references to published reliable sources, the material does not belong in Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

How to add different page numbers from the same source?

I want to use a book as a source but there are different pages within the book that can be used to cite different paragraphs in the article. The page numbers I want to use are: 26-33, 55, and 86. How would I cite these pages? Should I just put "26-33, 55, 86" as the page numbers? Lupine453 (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lupine453. Here's one method:

Code:

Text part ONE.<ref>{{Harvnb|Pettingill|1985|pp=26–33}}</ref> Text part TWO.<ref>{{Harvnb|Pettingill|1985|p=55}}</ref> Text part THREE.<ref>{{Harvnb|Pettingill|1985|p=86}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Bibliography==
* {{cite book|ref=harv|first1=Olin Sewall, Jr. |last1=Pettingill|year=1985|title=Ornithology in Laboratory and Field. Fifth Edition|publisher=Academic Press|isbn=0-12-552455-2|location=Orlando, FL}}

Output:

Text part ONE.^[1] Text part TWO.^[2] Text part THREE.^[3]

==References==

^ Pettingill 1985, pp. 26–33
^ Pettingill 1985, p. 55
^ Pettingill 1985, p. 86

==Bibliography==

Pettingill, Olin Sewall, Jr. (1985). Ornithology in Laboratory and Field. Fifth Edition. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-552455-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

For more on this and other methods, see Help:Shortened footnotes. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Fuhghettaboutit Lupine453 (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

suspected political interference

Hello,

I've been editing this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christy_Clark

The controversies section of the current Premier of British Columbia.

Just as the provincial campaign began, my latest work was wiped off, clean. All the latest editions were erased. I see the work in the past editions page but unclear how to contest or restore the work?

I would appreciate any guidance or advice.

Thanks,

Darren Alexander (Note: somehow my latest editions entered under Mediararus -- my original but forgotten and never-before-used account that automatically logged in for those editions) Theadjuster (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Theadjuster (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Theadjuster (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

According to the edit summary of the user who removed it, it was "entirely unclear." Looking over, I kind of have to agree. The section titles try to cram too much exposition in there: if you need references for a section title, you're probably doing it wrong. A lot of the material in those sections isn't actually about Clark, either.

The reverting user appears to be from Alabama, so I recommend you save your accusations of "political interference" and read WP:Assume good faith.

Also, the article has a page where you can discuss issues with that article: Talk:Christy Clark. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Headings

How to give headings ......Bold and enlarged size ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartik Khurana (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kartik Khurana See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings. Here's a little trick. Take just about any named part of the interface, or thing you see here and try to think what an intuitive name for it might be and then pop that name into the search after "Wikipedia:" or "WP:" which has the same result, and you will very often find a targeted page about what you were wondering about. For example Wikipedia:Heading and Wikipedia:Headings are both shortcuts to the link I just provided. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Definition of 'promotionalism' according to Wikipedia?

Hello please could someone help me understand why a very simple referenced line from a newspaper article about education that I added to the 'Sri Chinmoy' article was termed an attempt at promotionalism by another editor?[[2]] I tried to discuss this on the article talk page but I could not get a formal answer only I was told to stop attempting POV on the article and also that I might be banned from editing if I wanted to continue with that point.[[3]] I am quite confused about what is going on being a newer editor - would someone be able to clarify whether and if my edits were 'promotionalism' according to Wikipedia guidelines? Thank you. Maryanne881 (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender answered your question three days ago at Talk:Sri_Chinmoy#Education_topic. Unless the source you cite is explicit in the claim that Chinmoy "felt that study and work were an important part of life for his students," then it's WP:UNDUE weight. Undue weight intended to make the reader hold a certain opinion is promotional. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. The question was not answered to me previously as you did above, so now I have more clarity and that is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryanne881 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Wiki Page - Only Admin Can Create Page

Hello, I've been attempting to create a wiki page that I noticed wasn't made, but on the page it states "This page is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it." Is there a way I can create a page in article wizard/sandbox where an admin can approve it for it to get created? What is the best way of doing this as the page has seemed to have gotten deleted before. Thank you!JMLR123 (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi JMLR123, welcome to the Teahouse. What is the exact name of the page? Then we can better evaluate the situation. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi JMLR123. As with so may questions here, telling us the specifics is important to a tailored answer. What topic were you trying to create? With that we will be able to research why it was salted a/k/a creation protected. It may have been because it was created persistently over and over by one person so its salting was just a stop-gap measure or to protect a BLP against vandalism. There may already be precedent for not including the topic through a deletion discussion, and any recreation would be subject to CSD G4. There are many possibilities. Generally, yes, there are ways to create pages and work them up before requesting assessment or a move to the article mainspace, such as through a userspace draft or a draft in the draft namespace, with either able to be submitted for assessment through the articles for creation process. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The original poster of this thread has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

How do you deal with biased information?

I have never attempted to edit Wikipedia until recently. I was concerned that the information on a certain Wikipedia page was biased. I attempted to edit the page and my edit was reverted. Since then, I have engaged in chats with seemingly hostile "hosts" telling me that I am trying to "whitewash" an article. The article has been edited by people with a very liberal political viewpoint, and the talk pages seem to be heavily liberal as well. Is that the standard now for Wikipedia? Or, is anyone still interested in it maintaining an objective, neutral site for information? NashvilleMezzo (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are Standard CenterSP (talk · contribs) complying with the request to get a new username. Is that right? Doug Weller talk 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The material to which you object seems to be referenced. All you have to do is to find WP:Reliable sources that say the opposite, and add a summary of these to restore the balance. Removing referenced information just because you don't like it is not permitted. Dbfirs 21:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The above is only true if the contradictory material would be of due weight to include. 100 Reliable source say X is true, only one seemingly reliable source says X is false, you would not even mention it. Without that we get the false balance (so common on, for example, the crappy evening news in the United States), of trotting out a creation "scientist", every time an evolutionary biologist is on, as if the scientific consensus is not completely settled on such issues.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I should have made that clear. Dbfirs 06:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit The issue here is also that the article in question is subject to discretionary sanctions from Arbcom requiring any contested material be discussed on the talk page first and is also subject to 1RR. See here: Talk:Frank Gaffney. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Will my name get me banned?

Will my name get me banned? Shaka Do Thang 2 The Great Escape (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but abusing multiple accounts will. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

What to do when something I contributed is reverted incorrctly (in my opinion)

The article in question is Henry Kamen. I added that he had recently been charged with possession of child pornography, citing as source a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice. This was deleted by User:Symmachus1 because he believes this is libelous. You'll also notice that he labeled these deletions as "minor".

Britain has broader libel laws, but the alleged crime took place in the United States, when Kamen was living in the United States, and the indictment is from a U.S. federal grand jury. Under U.S. federal law an indictment by a grand jury is by definition not libelous. I don't have support to cite but I'm pretty sure of this, and I've worked with libel issues previously.

I'd be grateful for suggestions of how to handle this. deisenbe (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

deisenbe, welcome to the Tea House! I think you made a GF effort to insert information that was probably factually accurate, however, the question of whether or not it's legally defamatory is a secondary one in the case where WP's own policies require a higher standard. Our WP:BLPCRIME policy says that we should avoid including information on indictments that have not resulted in convictions in the case of "relatively unknown people" and, I think, the person you mention qualifies as relatively unknown. There seems to be a general consensus that including indictments sans convictions is only appropriate if: (a) the individual is a public figure, (b) the indictment itself has been the subject of significant news coverage in secondary sources. It might be best to wait until or if there is a guilty plea or conviction in the case and then revisit updating this article with a WP:RS about the conviction. DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Deisenbe: I see that the link you gave to an article in The Australian now leads to an (unusually entertaining) 404 message. So it looks as if they also have decided to remove their report of the incident. Maproom (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedai article about a program

How do I successfully create a Wikipedia article about a program without it being deleted? Roy Stiff (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Roy Stiff. Read Your first article and follow its instructions closely. The quality of the coverage in reliable, independent sources is the most important factor in writing a successful article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Using {{cite journal}} to cite book reviews?

I'm working on my first article stub: Lilias Armstrong, and I'm now realizing instead of just writing out the citation information for papers etc., I should probably be using the {{cite journal}} templates since that leads to consistency.

But this template requires that all journals have an article title and that the title be surrounded in quotation marks. I'm not quite sure how this works for book reviews.

I have written up a list of books Armstrong had written and I was including a list of contemporary academic reviews so that the reader of the Wikipedia article might see how her work was received by her contemporaries. Right now, it looks something like:

Armstrong, L. E. (1923). An English phonetic reader. The London Phonetic Readers. London: University of London Press.

Reviewed by S. K. Chatterji. (June, 1924) The Calcutta Review, p. 561.

If I decide to change them both to the {{cite journal}} template, then I'm required to have a title, even if there isn't necessarily a title to begin with. If the formatting wasn't clear that Chatterji (1924) was reviewing Armstrong (1923), I might put the title as |title=[Review of Armstrong (1923)], but this seems redundant. Plus the final version will surround the square brackets in quotation marks which doesn't seem right.

I'm having a similar issue when I want to list Armstrong's reviews of other works when I get titles like "Review of M. L. Barker, M.A. French Intonation Exercises. (Cambridge, W. Heffer & Sons.)]"

Am I overthinking this? Should I not even be using {{cite journal}} templates in a Bibliography section?

Thanks, I'm still trying to figure out Wikipedia's citation style.

Umimmak (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Umimmak. Wikipedia has no standard, formalized citation style. Any style that accurately conveys bibliographic information about the reliable source being cited is acceptable. Citation style should be consistent within a given individual Wikipedia article, but not project wide.

Personally, I like using citation templates since they standardize the presentation of the bibliographic information, prompt the editor to provide that information, and generate error messages when an editor makes a significant mistake. But use of such templates is entirely optional when starting a new article. Template:Cite journal is intended for citing articles in peer-reviewed academic journals, but Template:Cite news can be used to cite newspaper and magazine articles. "Intellectual" general circulation magazines may overlap with academic journals. Either template or none or another template may be used in such borderline cases. The selection of a citation template is far less important than complete presentation of bibliographic information to the reader.

Every article in a journal or magazine will have a title, even if the title is "Review of X". There is nothing at all redundant in providing such a title for the reader, and I see no reason to see the titles of book reviews to be different in any way from the titles of other types of journal articles. I could be wrong but I do not recall ever seeing a journal article lacking a title. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The "titles" of book reviews in journals that I tend to read are just the bibliographic details of the book under review, Cullen328. Here's an example. I struggle to work out how best to reference book reviews too, Umimmak - and not only on Wikipedia! Cordless Larry (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The title of that article is "Book Review: Writing in Sociology", Cordless Larry. Why is that difficult, if you also include the author, date, journal name, page numbers and so on? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, bad example from me there, Cullen328. I was going by what it says on the PDF pages (of which you get a preview there), not the webpage title. Here is another example, where the title might appear to simply be "Book Review", though there is a suggested citation that uses the book title and author as the title of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328. Okay I'll work on converting the references to the citation template. With respect to the review, however, the example I mentioned above can be found here: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.99582

So should I write something like:

Armstrong, Lilias E. An English Phonetic Reader. The London Phonetic Readers. London: University of London Press.
Reviewed in Chatterji, Suniti Kumar (June 1924). "An English Phonetic Reader by Lilias E. Armstrong, B. A., Lecturer in Phonetics, University College, London : University of London Press, Ltd. Price 4 shillings nett". The Calcutta Review. 3rd Ser. 10: 561.

That's a bit of a clunky title, no? But it's the closest thing to a title in the published review. Or should I instead have a title of |title=An English Phonetic Reader, or |title=[Review of An English Phonetic Reader]

[Ninja edit: ack, I can't get the archive.org URL to go to the right page, but see here: https://ia801604.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/14/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.99582/2015.99582.The-Calcutta-Review-Vol10-No1-3april-june1924_jp2.zip&file=2015.99582.The-Calcutta-Review-Vol10-No1-3april-june1924_jp2/2015.99582.The-Calcutta-Review-Vol10-No1-3april-june1924_0647.jp2&scale=8&rotate=0 ]

Umimmak (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit mystified, Umimmak. Why would you think that you should try to cram the author name, author job title, university name, and sales price (of all things) into the title field? The title field is for the article title (or book title when citing a book) and not for any of that other stuff. Bibliographic information includes article title, author in a separate field, book title or journal name in a separate field, publication date in a separate field, publisher in a separate field, page numbers in a separate field, and so on. I cannot think of a reason to include the author's job title or the sales price from a century ago. Title fields are for article titles or book titles only, and for nothing else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328 — because, as Cordless Larry notes, all of the publication information of the reviewed book in question typically is the title of a book review. Look a the review in question which I'll link here. I'd prefer to follow, say, APA style 6th Edition, pg 209, (note how a description of the review is in brackets, not quotation marks. In the example the APA Style Guide gives there is a "real" title as well, namely "Learning by text or context?", but most reviews don't have a proper title.):

Schatz, B. R. (2000, November 17). Learning by text or context? [Review of the book The social life of information, by J. S. Brown & P. Duguid]. Science, 290, 1304. doi:10.1126/science.290.5495.1304

but that seems impossible to do with wikpedia's Cite Journal template. Umimmak (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is a better example of the traditional book review format, which I was trying to explain, but doing a bad job of, above. Here is a contemporary example of that style (or here for an open access one so that people can see it in full). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you understand why I'm not finding this 100% straight forward, Cordless Larry. I was thinking I might be able to use the |trans-title argument, since that creates a title surrounded in brackets, but it requires a |title argument to work. And I could just say |title=Review or something, but that's really not the title but rather the |department. So I guess I'll have to use |title= with the full title of the review even if it is cumbersome. Or maybe something like |title=[Review of Title by Author], even if that produces the awkward "[Review of Title by Author]". FWIW, I checked my copy of Turabian and it's similar to APA, discussed above, except it doesn't have the description of the review be in square brackets (but no quotation marks like there would be for a proper title). Umimmak (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding a new art and association

I would like to add about new art technique and work in the field of writings about Visual Arts and Culture into Wikipedia, how can I contribute to it? Ijvascvisualarts (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ijvascvisualarts. You have been given some good advice about formatting and referencing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please find some independent reliable references before resubmitting your article. If the technique is so new that it has not yet been written about extensively, then it cannot have a Wikipedia article. Dbfirs 12:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

How do I join the a Wikiproject?

What do I do to join a Wikiproject? I want to reach a point were on my profile I can say I help with a Wikiproject. I am currently thinking of joining the Nintendo Wikiproject as I have a Nintendo Switch, am interested in Nintendo and edit a lot pages related to the topic of Nintendo. How would I join that one? Greshthegreat (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Greshthegreat, Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia! The topic Nintendo comes into Wikiprojects Japan and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games , You can browse such articles related to your topic at here. --Shriheeran (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Last question, what is the template called to show I am a member of the Wikiproject video games on my profile page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greshthegreat (talk • contribs) 13:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no template for this. For further details see this page. And you can create a template for your own by copying the other wikiproject user templates. Wish you the best!...--Shriheeran (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Greshthegreat: Try Template:User WPVG. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Citations

Hi

My submission has been rejected, mentioning a problem with the footnotes. Please advise how i can resolve this.

Regards

Buravan (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Buravan. The draft in question is Draft:Burabyo Yvan. Three different reviewers have mentioned a variety of problems with your draft and you should read their comments and the links they provided carefully. As far as the problem with your references (footnotes), they are formatted as bare URLs and instead should be complete references including full bibliographic information, including author, article title, name and date of publication, and so on. Please read Referencing for beginners to learn the techniques. A more difficult problem is whether this person meets our notability guideline for musical performers. Winning second place in one song contest and being ranked fifth on a publication's list of best local performers is not very impressive. Your best reference is a brief newspaper interview with him, which is not an independent source. If this person is as successful in Rwanda as your draft says, then you should be able to provide much better sources that discuss him in depth. Be careful to write in your own words. You cannot copy sentences from your sources without indicating clearly that they are quotations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

[1] Pettingill 1985, pp. 26–33

[2] Pettingill 1985, p. 55

[3] Pettingill 1985, p. 86

[1]

[2]

[3]