Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 775

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 770

←

Archive 773

→

What URLs to include when referencing

Hi - I have a question about what info. to include for a cited source in a reference list. If I have an academic article with both a DOI linking to a paywalled download and a ResearchGate link to an open source download, do I include both in the reference? For example, the DOI for this reference links to a paywalled journal and is the technically correct academic reference:

Staub, E., Pearlman, L. A., Gubin, A., & Hagengimana, A. (2005). Healing, Reconciliation, Forgiving and the Prevention of Violence after Genocide or Mass Killing: An Intervention and Its Experimental Evaluation in Rwanda. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology: Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.24.3.297.65617

The article is also freely available via ResearchGate at:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laurie_Pearlman/publication/240630066_Healing_Reconciliation_Forgiving_and_the_Prevention_of_Violence_After_Genocide_or_Mass_Killing_An_Intervention_and_Its_Experimental_Evaluation_in_Rwanda/links/54d4d2db0cf25013d029fb79/Healing-Reconciliation-Forgiving-and-the-Prevention-of-Violence-After-Genocide-or-Mass-Killing-An-Intervention-and-Its-Experimental-Evaluation-in-Rwanda.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Should I include both the DOI and the ResearchGate links (e.g., by adding the ResearchGate link in the URL field of the reference)? If so, how do I indicate that they are linking to two different sources (or do I not need to worry about that)?

Thanks! Girish.l (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Girish.l, and welcome to the Teahouse. IF' you can be sure that the ResearchGate version is a fully accurate copy, and if it is not a copyright infringement, then it may be included as a 'convenience copy" to facilitate wider access. If it is a different version (not final perhaps) or is in violation of copyright, then it should not be included. The DOI should be included in any case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I avoid linking to PDFs posted at ResearchGate. The journal in your example (see via the doi) provides the abstract for free but sells the PDF. ResearchGate allows members to post links to PDFs of articles they are authors of, but I am not sure if that negates the journals' copyrights to those articles. As long as you are sure the article supports the text it is a citation for, the doi should suffice. David notMD (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, cool, thanks for the replies. Based on this advice I think I will refrain from including the ResearchGate link and stick with just including the DOI. Thanks again, Girish.l (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

How should I format my User: page, and how can I contribute as a multilingual?

Greetings, today I created an account and was trying to wrap my head around the concept of userboxes and how to contribute as a multilingual. Any good User: pages I could take some inspiration from or any idea how to get started with things like translation? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, A Lambent Eye (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, A Lambent Eye, and a hearty welcome to the Teahouse. Well done on completing the Wikipedia Adventure - I hope you found it worthwhile. It looks like you've already successfully found how to get userboxes to show in which languages you are competent. So, you might like to visit some of the places we have for utilising those skills. You might like to investigate Wikipedia:Translation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki, and maybe add your name to Wikipedia:Translators available. You could do well to look at some of the userpages of those editors listed there. Try that of User:Kudpung who has a range of multilingual skills, and is one of our very experienced administrator/editors too. Pages on English Wikipedia that that have been flagged as containing foreign language elements can be found at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English.

However, before you dive into too enthusiastically to offer translation, might I inject a friendly word of caution, please? Because you're very new to editing Wikipedia, I would like to urge you to spend some time familiarising yourself by simply editing English Wikipedia articles first. Having done that, you would be better placed to use your enviable multilingual to greatest effect. We are now so large (with 5.6 million articles, and 33,000 currently active editors on English Wikipedia, alone) that we do need quite a suite of policies and guidelines to ensure uniform style and approach to article construction and content. It is, unfortunately, quite easy for very new editors to be bold and to rush in in all 'good faith' and to hit problems they haven't fully appreciated. This is OK, but it can be demoralising if you're not prepared for it, and especially if you can't see what red line it is that you've stepped over. So, the trick is to listen to and heed the advice/concerns of others editors. Ask questions, too. There will nearly always be a good reason for any such advice, so do heed it, and pretty you'll soon become a great contributor. The key to becoming a successful contributor is to take small steps at a time, learning the right way to edit articles as you go along, and then I can envisage your language skills being immensely useful here, and maybe on other language wikipedias, too. I've left you a welcome message with some useful links on your talk page. Of course, do come back and ask for further assistance here should you ever need it, or if you don't feel I've quite answered the questions you were asking. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

My most sincere thanks Nick for that wise, tactful and concise reply. I shall be sure to study all the policies and guidelines and train myself in respect of the markup, although the Wikipedia Adventure did a very good job of introducing me to the principles and methods of Wikipedia. A Lambent Eye (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, A Lambent Eye, excellent advice there from Nick. If you have any questions regarding how we manage translations, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It shall be done, Kudpung. A Lambent Eye (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Comanche Springs is a real place, and it deserves a Wikipedia page

I’ve tried unsuccessfully to write an article for Draft:Comanche Springs. I’m trying to understand why it was rejected. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The unrelated kinsman (talk • contribs) 22:28, 22 May 2018 The unrelated (UTC)

@The unrelated kinsman: The decline message is quite clear, I think. A substantial portion of what you wrote was actually copied from somewhere else. We don't accept copyright violations. You will need to rewrite that part of the article, and all the rest of it, in your own words rather than copying from other sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The declining reviewer actually deleted the copyrighted text, The unrelated kinsman, which had been taken from http://www.forttours.com/pages/hmpecos.asp or from the historical marker pictured in the draft. I then revision deleted the versions of the draft that included the copyrighted text. Note that State historical markers are in fact subject to copyright, unlike US Federal markers.

Moreover, the current text and its cited sources is probably not sufficient to establish the notability of the topic, whoch will need to be dsone before the draft can be accepted. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a few online sources won't be hard to find

I've left a copy of the above at the draft's talk page.

Edaham (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, The unrelated kinsman (cool username BTW): If this place is or was a settlement (city, town, village, etc), the proper title would be Draft:Comanche Springs, Texas. If it is only a geographic feature without an associated settlement, the title should be Draft:Comanche Springs (Texas). John from Idegon (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

change username

Hello, I want to change my username because I can't use this one. Can you explain me how to change it please? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabcockWanson94 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi BabcockWanson94 Welcome to Teahouse! I think your motivation (I cant use this one) is because of conflict of interest (COI) where you are the creator for Draft:Babcock Wanson article. Even you change your user name, you still need to disclose COI.

(A) COI

Please visit here on how to disclose COI on Wikipedia.
You need to disclosed on your user page (pls unhide to the template to view info)
Disclose COI in the article talk page (see template)
If you are paid editor, please lease go to Paid-contribution disclosure where you could find several options for disclosure. State on your userpage that you are being paid by named "XXX" company/person for "XXX article"
You could request other Wikipedia editors to edit for you instead by placing {{request edit}} on affected article talk page.

(B) Change your username

Please read change of username info prior request the change
Place {{User previous account}} of your previous username on your user page.
Please visit WP:CHUS for change your user name.

In addition, your draft article has been decline. Please read write in a neutral point of view as the current stage it reads like a advertising document. Also you need more independent, reliable sources instead rely mostly with content from official site.Cheers! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

for add my name on naagin 3 page

hello sir, i am a actor and i am first debut from naagin 3 serial. thats why i want to add my name in naagin 3 page. my name - Rajpal singh rajput my charactor - Dhruv (friends of main lead) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpalsinghr (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rajpalsinghr Welcome to our Teahouse. We do not need your email address to respond to your question, so I have removed it for your privacy, and an administrator may delete it from the edit history to protect your interests. You have already asked this question in the right place - the Talk Page of the Naagin 3 article, so you do not need to repeat it here. I see you have been invited to supply a url to a source to substantiate (prove) what you say. If you can do this, another editor may well make that edit on your behalf. So it's up to you now to provide that evidence, please. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rajpalsinghr: Having now looked back at some of your recent edits, I don't understand why you have not listened to the recent helpful advice - and indeed warnings - that past editors have given you on editing this article, or adding content about yourself. What is it that you did not understand the first time on the series of warnings given to you on your talk page? I'm afraid you are just wasting my time and everyone else's if you simply repeat the same question again and again without ever acting on the advice given to you. You won't get a different answer, but you will find yourself blocked from editing again if you continue to try to promote yourself on Wikipedia without providing any evidence to back up your involvement. It's as simple as that. Whilst "manners makyth man", here it's "both manners and evidence that makyth Wikipedia". Nick Moyes (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability criteria

Hello all, as a really new member I would like to know what the Notability criteria are.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria ch gr (talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

hello, Maria ch gr welcome to our Teahouse. Notability is the critical threshold which every subject with a page on this Encyclopaedia has to meet if that page is to remain here. It really means we need to know that other people, independent of the subject have deemed that thing/person/place/concept sufficiently noteworthy to have written about it in depth, be it in books, newspapers, journals etc. We don't accept evidence of noteworthiness from people associated with that person or organisation, as they're likely to have a bit of a conflict of interesting wanting to promote their favourite subject! It can get a bit complicated because different areas (films, books, software, actors, places) can have specific notability criteria written about them. This is to help people understand the bar for acceptance, and against which we seek a consensus of opinion from other editors when discussing whether a subject is notable (and should remain here), or isn't notable (and so should have its article removed). You can read a whole lot more on this subject at Wikipedia:Notability, and also by following other links on that page, too. I hope this helps. Oh, by the way, in future, could you remember to sign all your postes with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically adds your name and a timestamp to your messages? Thanks. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Linking within a reference

This diff shows a link to a company within a reference. The editor has made other linking edits elsewhere where this company is mentioned in references. Should they be un-done? ―Buster7 ☎ 06:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Buster7. I see no problem with that wikilink. It is not an external link to some random company website as spam, but rather a link to our article about the publisher of the source used in the reference. I routinely link to notable authors, notable books, notable newspapers and magazines, and notable publishers in my references, including in several Good articles. I believe such links help our readers evaluate the reliability of sources. I think only one person has ever said they disagreed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Buster7 Hi, I have reverted the edit as I have never come across linking in citing source; however, to say that, I agreed with user:Cullen328 comment above. You are welcome to revert my edit. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Guys. I'd never come across it either. That's what made it unusual and worthy of doubt. ―Buster7 ☎ 06:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To me, this is a WP:CITEVAR issue. Either link or don't link metadata, but whatever you do, do it consistently. Don't changed established format without achieving consensus first. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It's common to wikilink newspaper/journal/publisher/website/author/whatever in citation templates when they have an article. The same article already did it many times. Just look at all the blue links in the references section at the time. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The documentation at Template:Cite web says publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited and website: Title of website; may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work. The other citation templates have similar instructions. I routinely link the names of notable publications when i cite them. I don't think this is a CITEVAR issue, but one of improving the metadata that anyone can and should do in any cite at any time. I don't think there is such a thing as a Wikipedia style that intentionally omits all such links, it is mrely that editors have not yet added them. If the same publi cation is cited many tiems, it is arguable that it need not be linked multiple times. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Help Me What Is Wrong With This Article

There is something odd in the 1964 entry of this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAMAS_Award_for_Best_Supporting_Actor). I just copy paste the default entry as a template for the year but seems like the appearance is quite odd. I don't know what I miss in editing this but I checked everything in the edit and seems like it is fine and I don't know why it appears like this. Please help let me know what did I miss in this edit so I will know. Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady olympia (talk • contribs) 12:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lady olympia. 1963 had a wrong rowspan which affected 1964. I have fixed it.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

And, after PrimeHunter fixed it but before he responded here, I removed all the "width=" settings which were causing the tables to be the full width of the screen. If you prefer them the way they were, please revert my edits. Maproom (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Problem with the page created

Please,what really happened with the page i created? what should i do/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwachukwu ruphina (talk • contribs) 14:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I assume this is about Draft:Prof. Oreh Catherine Ikodiya. You (or maybe someone else) submitted it as an article, and it was rejected for the usual reason: "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." You can improve the draft, in particular by adding several references to reliable independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject; or you can give up and abandon this attempt to create an article. Maproom (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

So, there it is, as a Draft. You have only one citation. Need others. What the subject has published has no bearing on credibility, and actually, that list should not be part of the article. Also, do you have any connection to C.I. Oreh? Family? Friend? Co-worker? Paid to create this article? This should be stated in the Talk of the Draft. Lastly, in your other edits, you are designating them as minor when they are not. Minor is for very small changes such as grammar, typos, spelling corrections, etc. David notMD (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Added information to a page was deleted

Hello.

I added some information the the bellow page and even cited an official source. For some reason, it was remove with no explanation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Victorian_Order

What did I do wrong?

What is the right process to edit pages?

Thanks!

Benoit Coutu — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenitoBC (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi BenitoBC! I know absolutely nothing about this subject, but that list is only for the "Knight/Dame Grand Cross (GCVO)". The comment to the edit that removed your addition said "The Duke of Sussex is only a KCVO", which would indicate he's only a "Knight/Dame Commander" and thus doesn't belong in the list. If this is incorrect, I'd advise you to add him again but make sure that you also include a reliable source so other editors can see where you got your information from. /Julle (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenitoBC (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

overwhelmed newbie trying to navigate COI/paid issues

Wanting to be totally transparent here and a total newbie so I am hoping I am not doing anything wrong! I am an art historian, curator, researcher and my primary interest is photography. However I have recently been consulting with a family that wanted to know more about their mother's artwork/career as a painter. They want to know if she was any good, if there was anything “there.” They aren’t interested in selling her work or profiting from it, they are just trying to learn more about her place in the history of art, if there was any. I am being paid for the research on the individual artist and in the process I am coming across some really interesting connections between this artist and other better-known artists, galleries, arts institutions, etc. I joined Wikipedia recently and posted a couple article suggestions here: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Visual arts. I would like to continue sharing on Wikipedia the info I am finding as part of this research so others will learn about these connections. But the more I try to read and understand the humungous number of rules and guidelines, I am realizing this might be a conflict of interest that I will be criticized for. How exactly do I deal with this, or is Wikipedia not the place for this information? The instructions on how to disclose COI or paid contributions are so complex I can’t begin to figure out how to do the right thing. HELP!Jenuphoto (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jenuphoto. It is not really that difficult. Paid-contribution disclosure gives you several options for disclosure. I recommend that you start a userpage, where you state that you are being paid by named person A for research about named artist B. If you conclude that artist B meets our notability guideline for artists, then use the Articles for Creation process to write a draft for review by experienced, uninvolved editors. When other editors have questions for you, admit your conflict of interest and defer to the judgment of experienced volunteer editors. Feel free to return to the Teahouse at any time with additional questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328. If I want to add info related to this artist's research, to other existing Wiki pages, do they have to be suggestions rather than edits because of possible COI? how should i "tag" those kinds of contributions?Jenuphoto (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Jenuphoto, if the artist's research has been published, and is considered a reliable source, then post on the article talk pages asking another editor to make the changes. See Template:Request edit for details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Draftspace Draft vs. Userspace Draft?

Hey there, just wondering what exactly the benefits of making a Userspace Draft over a Draftspace Draft is?

Thanks!

Melias C (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Melias C. In principle, no one has ownership over Wikipedia content, so it does not matter where you make drafts. But in practice, as a matter of etiquette, people often choose not to edit others' userpages. So, you'll be more likely to see other editors improve drafts in the Draft space than in the User space. In that regard, chose whichever suits you best.

There is one technical difference however. All pages in the Draft space can be deleted after 6 months if no one has improved them. For drafts in User space, they will have to go through an individual deletion discussion first. If you have {{AFC submission}} on a userpage draft, however, it can be deleted after 6 months without discussion.

In sum, if you are planning to have your draft ready within 6 months, it does not matter. You can do as you please. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll go ahead and start my article then! Melias C (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Referencing different pages from a book

I am interested in how I can reference multiple instances of different page numbers from a single work without resorting to making several citations of the same source differing only in the page or pages. I'm reasonably sure that's a thing we can do but have not run into an article using it yet.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rap Chart Mike: This is probably what you're looking for: Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: page numbers. I've used the notation before and it's definitely a time-saver. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That and the Help:Shortened footnotes mentioned in there are exactly what I'm looking for. Much Obliged @Drm310. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Template for citing a chapter of an edited book

Is there a citation template that would allow to cite a chapter in an edited book in the following way?

Suppose the book is Morton Edward, Bloom Francesca and Harold Pinter (editors), Analysis of Moon-river, Elsevier, Rockport 1991 and it contains a chapter by Einstein Alfred with the title "Moon-river flows opposite direction if water velocity approaches C", pages n-m

The template I'm looking for should allow you to cite Einstein's article in the following way:
Einstein, Alfred."Moon-river flows opposite direction if water velocity approaches C" in Morton Edward, Bloom Francesca and Harold Pinter (editors), Analysis of Moon-river, Elsevier, Rockport 1991

or, even better, if one uses short citations:
Einstein 1991. Einstein, Alfred."Moon-river flows opposite direction if water velocity approaches C" in Morton 1991
and, on a different line,
Morton Edward (1991) Morton Edward, Bloom Francesca and Harold Pinter (editors), Analysis of Moon-river, Elsevier, Rockport 1991.

Thank you for answering my question. Piero — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piero Caracciolo (talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Piero Caracciolo:,

a Template:cite book with chapter parameters like:

{{cite book |last=Einstein |first=Alfred |editor-last1=Morton |editor-first1=Edward |editor-last2=Bloom |editor-first2=Francesca |editor-last3=Pinter |editor-first3=Harold |title=Analysis of Moon-river |publisher=Elsevier |date=1991 |chapter=Moon-river flows opposite direction if water velocity approaches C |location = Rockport |isbn=}}

would result in:

Einstein, Alfred (1991). "Moon-river flows opposite direction if water velocity approaches C". In Morton, Edward; Bloom, Francesca; Pinter, Harold (eds.). Analysis of Moon-river. Rockport: Elsevier.

Not exactly your formatting, but it should contain all information in the appropriate places and with MOS-compliant formatting. See the "Examples" in Template:cite book for other variations and use cases. You can link this citation with shortened footnotes as well. GermanJoe (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Abel Sierra Madero

I reviewed Draft:Abel Sierra Madero and declined it, saying that the references (added after the previous trip through AFC) were not in the form of footnotes. I was then asked by User:Pandoraperez04 to review it again. I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. I have looked at it, and I don’t have a strong opinion on notability. I do see tone issues with peacock language, such as “award-winning” and “extremely well-known”. Will other experienced editors please comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClennon: Plenty of issues (bolding of headings, "award-winning" is an automatic no from me, "very well known", etc., laundry list of books/awards with in-text external links, etc.). It needs to be an article actually about him, not just a catalog of the stuff he's written. As it stands, I wouldn't quite G11 it, but I'd certainly decline it for inappropriate promotion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

However, do please note, Robert McClenon, that Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#General standards and invalid reasons for declining a submission says: Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons. That the references were not in the form of footnotes is not a good decline reason unless direct quotes or other places where inline cites are strictly required do not have them. In this case there do seem to be other reasons to decline, but perhaps a more informative message could have been left for Pandoraperez04? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Seraphimblade, User:DESiegel - Did you notice that my username is blue in my signature and is red in your replies to me? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Should that be removed from the menu of reasons for an AFC decline? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I apologize for the incorrect ping. I missed that.

I think that the reason should remain, but its description/message should be changed to say that inline cites (which need not be footnotes in the sense of using <ref>...</ref>) have not been used when they are required. The page linked to by the current message does say that, but the message doesn't. In the meantime, perhaps a clarifying comment would be a good idea. If that change in message cannot be made, then perhaps the reason should be removed. I will need to look into just where changes to the AfC templates can be proposed and discussed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 10:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Sorry about the typo, that's probably my fault for doing it first. I think the guidance, not the message, should be changed. "General references" are essentially worthless; they just say "Well, this source might support something in the article, somewhere...". Inline cites should be used to show specifically what the reference is meant to support. Generally referenced articles are essentially unreferenced. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I usually copy-and-paste a ping so as to get the spelling, sometimes of Indian names, right, and because I know that misspellings of Scottish names are both easy and annoying. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should change that, Seraphimblade but currently WP:V says Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. and WP:CITE says A general reference is a citation that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section. They are usually found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source. They may also be listed in more developed articles as a supplement to inline citations. WP:MINREF says that citations are required for Direct quotations; Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with ^{[citation needed]}, or any similar tag); Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged; [and] Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons and goes on to say that Our sourcing policies do not require an inline citation for any other type of material, although it is typical for editors to voluntarily exceed these minimum standards. Material not supplied by an inline citation may be supported with WP:General references or sources named as inline citations for other material. Various other guidelines, building on these, say much the same, that general references are acceptable for anything but the 4 types of content where inline cites are required. Changing all of that would require a site-wide consensus, and be quite a task. Until we do change those policies/guidelines, I don't think we should hold AfC drafts to a higher standard than mainspace articles. Would you agree, Robert McClenon? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

User:DESiegel - I don't think that AFC drafts should be held to a higher standard than mainspace articles, and I am aware that some reviewers, while agreeing with that statement, in fact decline drafts that satisfy NPP standards. Why do you ask? Are you saying that I should have accepted the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Robert McClenon, there were, I think, other reasons to decline in any case, although i didn't do a detailed review. In particular I am not at all sure that the sources were sufficient to establish notability. My reaction was largely to the decline comment which read The references are not in the form of footnotes. Please see Referencing for Beginners. If hypothetically, a reviewer declined to accept an otherwise acceptable draft solely because it did not use footnotes, then i think that would be incorrect. The decline reason and the comment seems to imply that this might have been done or might be done. I don't believe it actually was declined solely for that reason in this case, but the creator of the draft could well read it that way, and so might other reviewers. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The classic use for general references, by the way, was articles about non-contentious technical topics, particularly Mathematics articles, where the entire article could be sourced to a short section of a standard text or reference work, and providing inline cites to every equation, all going to the same source, seemed a waste of time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Follow-Up

User:Pandoraperez04 - Can we please discuss the draft here rather than on my talk page? I brought the discussion here to seek the advice of other editors, and would prefer not to have to tell you on my talk page that other editors agree that "extremely well-known" is puffery and that "award-winning" is not useful, and tends to imply big awards rather than small ones. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Question about deletion policy/confused (trying to help with maintenance)

Hello all and thanks for the invite! I'm struggling with some of the policies and where to find information sometimes, but, for the most part getting around alright.

I do have a question about why a very very very low resolution, small, picture file was rejected from being deleted because "it's being used," but there are very-high resolution version(s) of it also on Wiki Commons. That there are high-res versions was one of the reasons I gave for deleting it. (One is a JPEG and one is a TIFF, so using the JPEG should be just fine since there can be a lower-res version preview). I got prompted to help sort images for deletion, so, it's just kind of funny/odd for that to be rejected. Am I missing something?

(For reference, here's what I tagged for speedy deletion: File:Calvin Coolidge receiving statue of Boy Scout outside the White House 1927.jpg

and here is a high-res version of it: File:President greets visiting boy scouts. 1500 boy scouts from N.Y., N.J., & Conn. making annual pilgrimage to the Capitol being greeted at the White House by President Coolidge LCCN94508179.jpg )

Thanks in advance! Bibliographies-BreakfastOfChampions (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Bibliographies-BreakfastOfChampions. In order to qualify for deletion, the files have to be exactly the same, except for resolution. The bigger picture here does not have the edges cropped out, so it's not the same.

What you could do is upload a new version of the big image with the edges cropped out exactly the way they are in the smaller one. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll add, while "in-use" is always a valid way to keep files, it the case I describe above the low-resolution crops should be replaced with the identical high-resolution crops. That way the old file could be deleted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking something along those lines, but definitely didn't want to wing it!Finnusertop. Thank you so much for clarifying and explaining it that way! Bibliographies-BreakfastOfChampions (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Contact a User

How do I contact a user directly and privately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColdHardTruth (talk • contribs) 01:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Does the user have the "Email This User" feature enabled? If so, you can email them. However, it is usually better to conduct Wikipedia-related discussions in public on talk pages, either user talk pages or article talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

ColdHardTruth, Welcome to Teahouse! if this is regarding Majid Rafizadeh page and there are disagreements on the sourced/unsourced content and referencing on wrong subject (there are two scholars with the same name) then, please bring the discussion to the article talk page which currently there is a thread there - pls see - different people?|Two different people?. If after many attempts and parties involved could not come a consensus agreement (make sure all discussion and suggestions are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines with presented independent sources), please bring the issue to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

If in any case, it is not regarding the issue above you can contact the edito here provided both the sender (you in this case) and recipient must have allowed user emails in their preferences.

Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Terufumi Sasaki

I reviewed Draft:Terufumi Sasaki and declined it. The only source was Hiroshima (book) by John Hersey, and I said that the one paragraph could be included in the article on the book. The author resubmitted the draft, and it was declined, again with the recommendation to include the information in the existing article. User:Boundarylayer has now asked me to review the draft again, saying that they wish to add substantially more material. It does now have other references. Will other experienced editors please comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course we should have a biography of Terufumi Sasaki, one of the six main characters in a Pulitzer Prize winning book about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Not only is he a major figure in a very important book, Robert McClenon, but a quick Google Books search shows that he has received coverage in dozens on English language books about nuclear war and non-fiction literature. An encyclopedia that contains countless articles about fictional characters in animated cartoons, sci fi novels and video games should have room for a biography of such an important real world physician who treated the traumatized victims of nuclear war, and was described at great length in a major work of literature. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 - Are you saying that the current draft should be accepted, or that the author should expand the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I see that the article is in main space now, Robert McClenon. I do not believe that AfC reviewers should decline drafts about clearly notable topics. These drafts should be moved to main space with encouragement to continue improvements there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Legacypac - Please don't back-door delete a draft while it is being discussed here. Some of us were trying to discuss whether a stand-alone article is in order when you redirected the draft, which was a back-door delete. If you really think that a draft needs deleting, you know where MFD is, better than some of us do. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Do other editors think that the current draft should be accepted, or that the author should expand the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this should wind up as a separate article, in mainspace. I think it should be significantly expanded. I would have been fine with that expansion occurring while still in draft space, but i see no serious problems with accepting the draft first and expanding it later. I think that this redirect was improper. While the editor had been advised to incorporate this content into the article about the book, there was nothing mandatory about that advice, and in fact i would have disagreed with it. The draft as it then stood was a perfectly plausible draft, with multiple cited sources, about a topic with at least a reasonable chance of being notable. Redirecting in such a case is in my view unwise and improper. The draft has now been accepted, and I see no reason to move it back to draft space. @Legacypac, Robert McClenon, Cullen328, and Chrissymad: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC) @Legacypac, Robert McClenon, Cullen328, and Chrissymad: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Dumping on Reviewers

User:Cullen328 - I don't know whether to read your comment as a direct criticism. You write: "I do not believe that AFC reviewers should decline drafts about clearly notable topics." On its case, this reads like yet another case of dumping on the reviewers, which is just another illustration of a non-charming Wikipedia culture of dumping on some other group of Wikipedia volunteers. Are you saying that I should have accepted it the first time, when I declined it as one line that could be added to the article on the book, or a later version, such as when I asked for comments here? I don't think that an AFC reviewer should decline an article that, first, clearly paases notability, and, second, verifies the notability. I will decline a draft that says that someone played on a National Football League (American football) if it has no references, and will note that the guideline says that the person is notable, but that a reference must be provided. I declined the draft the first time because in its state at the time it was in my opinion not a useful addition to article space. If I should have read minds and known that the subject is considered notable, maybe we need AFC reviewers who can read minds of critics. It is very popular in Wikipedia to dump on a group of reviewers. It also isn't helpful. I also note that there wasn't agreement as to notability, and I think that asking other editors was a better idea than just guessing that other editors knew he was notable, and I think that discussing notability is better than dumping on reviewers about notability decisions that we have seen were not unanimous. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe that my comments consisted of an assessment of notability combined with a good faith comment about what sometimes happens at AfC, Robert McClenon. I do not use mind reading to assess notability, but rather the standard types of Google searches that I have used thousands of times in assessing notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 - Maybe I am hypersensitive about dumping on the reviewers, but some Wikipedia volunteers are very eager to complain about other groups of Wikipedia volunteer editors whom they say don't do enough, or are not sufficiently welcoming, or are bitey, and I get tired of criticism of the hard-working NPP and AFC reviewers. I didn't think that you used mind-reading, but it did appear that you were saying that Z should have known that the subject was clearly notable, rather than having to ask here. As I said, in this case, there wasn't agreement as to whether the article was ready for mainspace, so I think that I was reasonable in asking rather than just acting. But some editors would prefer to dump first and ask questions later. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I have re-read my own comments about nine times, Robert McClenon, and still cannot see how I was "dumping" on reviewers. You asked for opinions on a draft and its review. I offered my opinion on the notability of the topic and offered no harsh criticisms of anyone. I simply pointed out that I believe AfC should facilitate the acceptance of drafts about notable topics. Is that controversial? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 - First, I did say that I was sometimes hypersensitive about dumping on the reviewers. Second, to be precise, you did say that AFC reviewers should not decline drafts on clearly notable topics. That statement is true but not constructive, because it can be read either as a general restatement of the obvious, or as a specific statement about a particular draft, and I assumed that if it wasn't about a particular draft, it wasn't necessary. I declined the draft once, when it was one sentence, and the second time, I asked for advice. So you were either referring to my first decline, or to that draft at some point in its history, or making a general statement. Maybe it was only a general statement, but, if so, why repeat what we knew? You considered the subject to be clearly notable. There was reasoned disagreement. So your statement could plausibly have been a criticism of my action in declining it the first time, and I still think that it should have been declined the first time.

Third, just to belabor the obvious, I think that AFC reviewers may reasonably decline drafts about clearly notable topics if the draft does not establish notability or is otherwise not encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, when you come to a place like the Teahouse to ask a question, (and you are always welcome here), please remember that this is not the AFC Reviewers Lounge, but rather a place where improving the encyclopedia is always the highest priority. Since I am not an active AFC reviewer, I am unfamiliar with your work flow. I looked at the draft in its form when you brought it here, and immediately did a notability check, as I always do in such cases. Takes about a minute. Then I gave my opinion about the notability of the topic and whether such an article belongs in the encyclopedia. If I believe that a topic is notable, then I am motivated to help get an article about that topic into the encyclopedia, and will express my opinion about notability. My opinion is not intended as a criticism of any individual or group, but rather an attempt to facilitate the process. I am sorry that you interpreted my remarks as unfair criticism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Further Comment

As I mentioned above, the one action that I do think was a mistake was back-door deleting the article by a redirect while it was being discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I obviously missed the initial discussion but this person is absolutely notable. There are dozens of newspaper articles (I found several via newspapers.com) as well as content in several books, though I don't have access to those. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Now that this has come up, I wanted to add a couple of observations. User:Robert McClenon has frequently used the Teahouse to ask about decisions he has made at AfC review that might more suitably be asked at the AfC talk page, where he is also a participant. As I understand it, the Teahouse is intended to be a friendly place for editors, particularly new editors, to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia. WP has other venues for asking more advanced and more technical questions (though we do our best to answer them when they appear here). Asking questions about how to review AfC submissions and seeking additional attention to close call cases would seem to be outside the scope of the Teahouse.

The AfC project has been going through its own set of issues. One impression many people come away with is that the AfC reviewers are judging submissions more harshly than the drafts deserve; that their collective action is preventing good content from being added to the project. One common stumbling block is a draft about a possibly-notable subject but for which the submission fails to make an acceptable case, often with unsuitable referencing. We have a dilemma: chop the article to an inadequate stub that can be accepted or decline it and try to encourage, persuade, coddle, and cajole the contributor to bring the draft up to some minimal standard. My judgment is that the latter path often fails, but is better for the overall project than the former. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Myanmar or Burma?

I noticed that Kaing Shwedaung uses the country name "Burma". However, from my understanding, "Myanmar" is the official name. Should the page be changed to say "Myanmar", or should it stay the way it is right now? What is Wikipedia's policy on this?

Thanks! Hickland (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Hickland and welcome to the Teahouse.

The governing policy for this is known as COMMONNAME. WP uses the name that is predominantly used by reliable sources in discussing the subject. Official names or the desires of the subject are not determinative of what name is used on WP. If you go to Talk:Myanmar, you'll see that there has been considerable discussion about which name should be used for the article. At the time the Kaing Shwedaung article was created, Burma was still the name used on WP for the country. Since there is no ambiguity about the country intended, there is no urgency to replace all uses of "Burma". You could do this now or leave things the way they are; I don't think there's a policy-based reason not to do it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Got it, thank you very much! I will choose to leave the article as is right now :) Hickland (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Marshmallych/GeckoLinux

Hello, this article does look good? I think, it got small problems. Check, please. Marshmallych 06:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Marshmallych and welcome to the Teahouse.

One of the most important considerations for accepting an article is whether the subject is notable, in the Wikipedia sense of the word. In fact, there's a special set of considerations called NSOFTWARE that applies here. As far as I know, WP does not have a policy that says every Linux distribution should have its own article. And the fact that other Linux distributions do have an article is not, all by itself, sufficient reason for adding an article on another Linux distribution. So how do you think GeckoLinux stacks up against those criteria? Have you been able to find some in-depth coverage that is not written the project itself? Has it been written about by someone who is not best considered part of an enthusiast niche?

I think the other deficiencies of your article can easily be addressed. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

feedback on revisions

Hi I revised big-time an article, (tripled length and references) using my Sandbox, and then clicked the Submit box. Two month wait, and I wonder if there is a different way to get a review before posting. Or should I just post it? It is competent, not a controversial proof of an alien invasion conspiracy etc., but ... Appreciate any feedback / redirects. Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello GeeBee60 and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm sure it has happened before, but this is the first time I have encountered someone asking for AfC review of a sandbox created as a rewrite of an existing article. Flatly, this is not what AfC review is intended to do. I looked at your sandbox but don't feel competent to give feedback on your expansion of the original article. The optimal place to find people interested in the article is on the talk page of the original article (which you kind of credited when you copied it into your sandbox, but should really have more explicitly followed COPYWITHIN). The next best place would be the talk page of WikiProject Medicine or, if it exists, an applicable subproject of that WikiProject. If you're confident that you've done a good job on the rewrite, check for contributions by other editors in the intervening two months, make sure those changes are incorporated or addressed in your draft, and copypaste your sandbox into the content of Monomelic amyotrophy (again, with attribution according to COPYWITHIN). This is a pretty common practice by experienced editors and the discussion can proceed from there, if anyone has objections. When someone makes a big change to an article, there is often some pushback, so you may want to post a general explanation of what you did at Talk:Monomelic amyotrophy just to lay out your reasoning. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

A different editor has declined the submission for the same reason as above - for an existing article, change it, don't replace it. What I've done in similar situations is copy my replacement content from my Sandbox section by section and paste those into the article, starting with replacing existing sections and then inserting your entirely new sections. I see that you have already described your intention in the article's Talk. Once that is done you may have to clean up orphaned and duplicated references. Note that I went into your Sandbox and shortened your draft. David notMD (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Issue of notability with a biographical article on a Hindi writer

I have created this draft article Draft:Gopal Narayan Authey about a Hindi writer which was recently declined for not showing adequate notability. The writer has over 60 publications in Hindi language and has received many awards for his works. However, the article is declined because of the person not having significant coverage in news, books or peer-reviewed journals. I have used references from four news sources, one magazine source, two public library catalogues, one journal and one database among other sources. I have used total 33 references. How does the significant coverage for notability is defined? I see many other Wikipedia articles having fewer references to be accepted. Please help me. Atul Anand 07:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atul Anand TISS (talk • contribs)

Hello, Atul Anand TISS. Try to find more of the news and magazine kind. Library catalogues and database are fine for what you do: verify his publications and awards, but they are not significant coverage. Citing a million library catalogue entries will not help if this person has not been covered in any depth in news, magazines, and books. Since this person's career spans decades, you should see if there are printed (paper) sources about him. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Article Declined - Need Help

Hi! :)

My article has recently been declined due to the lack of notability. Could anyone please help me to identify the notable sources as well as those which are not notable enough from the list I provided under my article?

As far as I know these are well-known sources in the markets they represent, therefore I feel confused on how to proceed further. I made a long list collecting various sources where Harba was mentioned, and selected only those which based on Wikipedia hidelines seemed notable.

Here is the article I was working on -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Harba_ApS

Thank you very much in advance.

/Jolita — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoliPu (talk • contribs) 07:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

JoliPu It is a 3-year old start-up company, that has created 1 app. There are a few mentions here and there about the app, but not about the company, and that is to be expected when a company is very young. The source you mentioned on Special:Permalink/842888472#07:21:25, 25 May 2018 review of submission by JoliPu: "Djurslandsposten - Uge 35" (in Danish). Retrieved May 25, 2018. is a short mention in an article about the small marina da:Nappedam. It is much too early to write an article about this company. Sam Sailor 11:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

User threatening, pushing his political agenda

This guy Adamstraw99 is threatening me with some action even though I've warned him from advertising his political party on Chandigarh. This is against Wikipedia rules as far as I know. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandigarh&diff=842899233&oldid=842899051 Please see history. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.61.197.22 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Don't be panic. Actually Adamstraw99 will violate WP:3RR if he undoes one more time, not you, don't undo anything on that page yet. Discussion should be started in the article's talk page. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The "advertisement" in question consists of mentioning which political party a MP represents, which to me seems a perfectly normal thing to do. Please remember to assume that other editors act in good faith, that is, that they are interested in improving the encyclopedia. And as AE says above, please use the article's talk page to discuss instead of just reverting back to your preferred version. --bonadea contributions talk 14:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Guys, please check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikiexplorer13. Wikiexplorer13 is evading block. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what templates to use

I was editing Hopkins_Library and recieved the impression it was observing the topic in an almost nostalgic/poetic way. I was wondering whether the local template would fit it, but peacock also might fit or the article might need citations of some sort. I would like to hear your opinion on the subject to learn more about the concise usage of cleanup templates. Any and all help will be appreciated. A Lambent Eye (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@A Lambent Eye: Perhaps {{Tone}}? You can see a fuller list here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There's also always {{sofixit}}, of course. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I have suggested using the story template on the talk page. Thank you for your help. A Lambent Eye (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)