Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 939

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 935 ← Archive 937 Archive 938 Archive 939 Archive 940 Archive 941 → Archive 945

Adding content to a stub

I am working on GeoFS. How do I add enough information so that it could not be classified as a stub. I know it is not classified as one right now, but it is very short and I have a lot of information about it. How would I go about adding information, and what information should i include? I nearly doubled its size yesterday, but I'm new, so I'd like answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmageddonAviation (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, ArmageddonAviation, and welome to the Teahouse. What GeoFS needs now, desperately, is not more information, but citations to reliably published material about it, wholly independent of its developers and publishers. Blogs are hardly ever regarded as reliable sources, and all it has at present as sources are its own website, and three blogs. In fact, unless you have reliable published mostly independent sources for the information you want to add, you shouldn't add it at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and unless the material in it can be checked by a reader (in any country at any time), that information is worthless. Please see WP:REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I just realized that there is literally no information about GeoFS anywhere on the internet. I have been managing its wiki, though, which is the only other source that shows up besides the site itself and its blog. How do I go from here? Or is this a dead-end? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmageddonAviation (talk • contribs) 19:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
If there are no reliable sources about the subject, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Not everything does; it is not a sleight against the subject; it just can't be told about here. There are numerous other forums that permit just telling about something. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing tables

I noticed that when editing an article with a table "|-" that the table should end with "|}". If it ends with "|-" the entire table becomes hidden in read mode though the information is still available in the edit mode. I'm not sure if this is a glitch or merely the intended result of the coding. You can see this in the history of the edits for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Uber.

Best, Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A410:54B0:CB6:D047:CFC4:8E00 (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You can learn more about editing tables at Help:Introduction_to_tables_with_Wiki_Markup RudolfRed (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ruquaiyya begam was malika-e-hindustan

Why did you remove my edit of ruquaiyya sultan.she was malika-e-hindustan because she was given the title of padshah begam.Please publish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firangim (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The query refers to edits to Ruqaiya Sultan Begum, apparently made by Firangim while not logged in, as shown as additions by IP 45.116.232.46. David notMD (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Firangim:, your edits were removed because you provided no reliable sources to support your claims. If you can find adequate sourcing for your changes, then make certain you cite them appropriately. Also, please ensure that you proofread your edits as best as you can before submitting your edits, as there were a few spelling and grammatical errors. Thank you, caknuck ° needs to be running more often 20:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The SPI box

You know that big box on the WP:SPI page that lists all of the non-archived cases? I often find that it's out of date, even after refreshing or purging the cache. How come the box takes so long to update? Server issues, I assume? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 19:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Woshiyiweizhongguoren: You're probably better off asking this technical question at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Timtempleton: This user has recently been blocked. Mstrojny (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mstrojny: Well, that was a train wreck. And an autoconfirmed editor as well. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
An article creator and also an annoying presence at Teahouse and elsewhere. David notMD (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing A Photo

Hi! I work with some clients and we'd like to update our photos on the artist page (they're over 10 years old) but I don't have the access to do that. Are there any users on here that could help if we had cleared photos to use? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resartistmgmt (talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey Resartistmgmt. First, you should register a different name for your account. Accounts that represent groups or organizations are not permitted.
Besides that, if the company wishes to release photos they own under a free license so that they may be used on Wikipedia, you can find the instructions for doing so at WP:CONSENT. GMGtalk 20:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Resartistmgmt. I am sorry but I am going to block your account because it violates our username policy. It presents itself as a company name which is not allowed. Wikipedia accounts are for one individual person, not for groups or companies. This is a "soft block" which means that you are welcome to open a new individual account that complies with our username policy. You must then immediately comply with our mandatory Paid contributor disclosure. One aspect of that is that you must disclose your clients openly. Please also familiarize yourself with our guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest. Please be aware that an account must exist for at least four days and have also made at least ten edits in order to upload files to Wikipedia. But if you intend to upload freely licensed images that you hold the copyright to, then you should upload them instead to Wikimedia Commons, our sister project which contains over 50 million free images. They can then be used here and on other language Wikipedias and for other purposes, with attribution. Please comply scrupulously with the relevant licensing requirements. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Steven Benjamin Damelin

Will someone please look at this draft and give some advice to User:Geapsu about the draft and about how to use Wikipedia? They top-posted a request for help to the top of my user page and to the top of the Teahouse here. It is clear that they are trying in good faith to submit a draft on Draft:Steven Benjamin Damelin, but that they will need a lot of hand-holding. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up @Robert McClenon:. @Geapsu: - I just made some minor changes for syntax, style and flow, but can't comment on the notability aspect - researching academic notability is outside my wheelhouse. I have seen @DGG: comment often at AfD on academic's articles, using Google scholar and identifying how often the subject's work is cited by others, so perhaps he might have some notability insight here. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Timtempleton. I have some advice for User:Geapsu which may be blunt. In Wikipedia, we try to be patient with new editors, but it is difficult for us, who are volunteers, to work with editors who do not seem to pick up basic clues as to how a wiki works. If a talk page has a tab for a New Section, Use That Tab, which posts to the bottom of the page. There is no reason to post a request for help at the top of a page. Do not create multiple copies of a draft. It doesn't make it more likely that you will get one of them accepted, and it is likely to confuse both the originator and the reviewers. Do not ask the same question, or almost the same question, in two or three places. You might get different answers from different editors, and then that will make you even more confused. Slow down and try to figure out what you are doing and do one thing at a time. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Timtempleton, Robert McClenon, and, especially, Geapsu, I've left a detailed comment on the draft. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy

Would it make sense to say that the information on articles that are either semi protected or above (meaning extended confirmed and full protection), usually means the accuracy and reliability of the information higher and more trustworthy?

97.90.47.253 (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No. Articles are protected usually to slow down vandalism or other disruption. It says nothing of the overall quality of the article. RudolfRed (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
If you want an example of higher quality articles, browse through Wikipedia:Good_articles. RudolfRed (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
And WP:Featured articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Non-official name for Mars region, what to do with the page?

Hello, I'm working on a planetology team that has proposed a name for a region of Mars (Oxia Planum) to the International Astronomical Union (IAU, who is the body in charge of such matters), but we were notified that wikipedia pages describe this region using that name and this is contrary to the practices.

Obviously, the IAU seems not to be really aware of wikipedia ways, as we did not write those articles... What would be a good way to handle the issue? Is there a macro that could output a warning? Ask for page renaming until the name is accepted (with a section about the proposal)?

Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazhe (talk • contribs) 08:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mazhe, welcome to the Teahouse. Are you saying "Oxia Planum" is the name your team is suggesting? Our article has been called Oxia Planum since it was created in 2015. The name was already in use then, e.g. in [1] by ESA in 2014. I suspect you have misunderstood something or not explained it fully. The name has been widely used for years. The Google search "Oxia Planum" gives me "About 22.200 results". I don't see why IAU acceptance should depend on Wikipedia not using the name when many others do. We use the common name of subjects and this is the common name as far as I can tell. We are not changing the name unless another name is more common. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
This might be a misunderstanding on the naming rules. The Planetary Names: Feature Name Request form on the IAU site states that: "Wikipedia is not sufficient as a source, but may be useful for identifying appropriate sources". See if you can find a reference to "Oxia Planum" in one of the sources listed in the form's drop down, or else use one or more of the references listed at the foot of Oxia Planum. To me, as a humble Wikipedian and not an astronomer, they seem to show established naming in reputable sources which is what I suspect that the IAU is after. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Organization About Us Descriptors

Organization About Us Descriptors- My organization wants a standardized Organization descriptor. I tried to use the standardized "about us" we have on our official public website; however, it was removed. I provided a reference to the source on our site as well. For clarification, based on the constant removal of my content on my page--- I can't reuse established content that we have on our Website for my organization wiki page. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avdavis1976 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Avdavis: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have placed important information that you must review on your user talk page; please read it as soon as you can. To be frank, Wikipedia is not interested in what your organization might want to say in the article about it. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. If there is missing or incorrect information that you can support with independent sources, we want to know what it is, but you should not edit the article directly as you have a conflict of interest. You may make an edit request on the article talk page to request any changes you feel are needed. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Please also read WP:PAID if you work for "My organization". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Page deletion

Can you please advise if there is an opportunity to restore the deleted page?

The page Vigo Industries was repeatedly created as an advertising piece, contrary to Wikipedia policy. It cannot now be recreated. Dbfirs 15:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Unable to add url/pdf to citation template

I am cleaning up my references here and wanted to add a bibliography using a citation template. When I add a url, I get one of several url errors. I've clicked on the help link listed when the error shows, but nothing seems to help. Both books in the bibliography are available online. This is for the second book. The book is actually a pdf (svk_vol_36.pdf). I've tried adding the page url and the pdf and neither is accepted. I've read the documentation about citation templates, and am not finding what I need (or not recognizing it). Thanks Aurornisxui (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Aurornisxui Welcome to Teahouse. see below
  1. Please remove all external links in the bodytext, instead pls input them as sources and provide inline citation. You can add additional column for references on far right of the table.
  2. The name of the article should start with "List of xxxxxxxxxx" as it is a stand alone list article.
  3. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and the links associated with the templates. - For book/PDF - see Template:Cite book and use "Most commonly used parameters in horizontal format"
  4. VisualEditor - You can use WP:VisualEditor to cite the source. It automatically fills the necessary info once you provide the source's URL and it also has the manual option to fill in the source info. see Help:VisualEditor/User guide. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA Thank you very much for your criticism of my list. It's helped me clarify what should and should not be on the list. I will try VisualEditor to see if that helps with the url. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

how can articles be "poorly" sourced

How would an article be "poorly" sourced or "badly sourced"? Articles need sources. However, what's poorly sourced? How are sources "unreliable"? Angela Maureen (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Angela, If an article has sources, but the sources do not link to the claims in the text, that can be considered poor sources. Unreliable sources are sources that have a bad track record when it comes to reporting on the truth. We have a long list of discussions about sources here. Good Luck! WelpThatWorked (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
And also definitely go through Reliable Sources guidelines. There are two forms of reliable sources. one form is for accuracy and neutrality of contents it is providing and one would be sources for verifying that article subject meets the notability requirements. A press release is likely reliable for the accuracy of information about a company, but it is useless as far as showing the notability of the company. Comments posted by bloggers, forum users and video some dude made on YouTube are examples of "unreliable" sources. Graywalls (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

How do you make a page?

I really wanna make one about GD Juniper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATeeGD (talk • contribs) 18:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

how do i write an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperial Numismatics (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Greetings to both of you. A good breakdown of how to write your first article can be found here. Please make sure that your subjects meet the notability requirements and that you provide reliable sources for all of your facts. Thank you, caknuck ° needs to be running more often 18:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

International Africa Festival Tübingen, Germany

Wall of text
Taking into consideration that this is a platform that has gathered 100.000 local audience and reached out to million worldwide with top world class African hidden and undiscovered talents as well as top stars such as Aplha Blondy, Business Conference with top high ranking politicians and civil society. Stricking thing is the numerous greetings received by this event from President of Germany, Hörst Kohler in 2010, 2016 words of greetings from the minister präsident in Baden-Württemberg, Southern region of Germany, and the former outgoing German President Mr Gauck Joachim had invited the organizers at the German presidency in 2012. 2014, more than 15 African Ambassadors attended this event. This year this event is being upgraded into a German African International Expo, attracting quality exhibitors and arts exhibitions from atleast 15 Visual artist - independent Artist with visions to contribute to world peace and justice thereby presenting thir works and getting an award. The most amazing thing about the organizers is the quest to host a platform that brings millions of people irrespective of their countries of origin, religious Background, Status and gender together in a conservative country as Germany and this seem to be working with 2015 edition attracting more than 30.000 visitors in just four days. No government support...all volunteering with more than 200 volunteers.

Ones opinion may think humans are originally not born racist except provoked by some circumstances, the turnout to the International Africa Festival in Tübingen concludes everything. Tübingen is the location is a star destination for golbal travellers be it studying at its Tropical University Center hosting more thousands of International students. Approximatelly 50 nationalities are residents in Tübingen. Is this project a relevant topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan Tatah (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not listed on w:de:Liste_von_Musikfestivals, and I found no article on dewiki about this, but that doesn't directly affect enwiki: If you have at least three significant, reliable, and independent sources supporting that it might be notable here.
Updated later: You wrote artists, I erroneously interpreted it as musician, sorry. If it's directly related to, say, Matariki Network of Universities, you could add a new section to the University. That also requires references, but it's easier than new articles. You could then request a redirect to this section. –84.46.52.142 (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

When is a COI Noticeboard considered concluded?

I have a thread here Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Outside_In_(organization) . After I've started the thread, another editor initiated interacting with the related parties, but the thread itself has no further interaction at this point. How do I know when consensus has been reached in COI/N issues? Graywalls (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The current state on COI/N is no consensus, on-going discussion and shall be not re-evaluated on the TEAHOUSE in 2019. –84.46.52.142 (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Can a draft article be moved?

Hello, I just created a new draft article for Susan Hudson but I noticed it was not in my user space... like, for example Joan Almond. Not really sure what I did differently but can the draft be moved to my user space? If so how could I do that. Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A draft initially created as a userspace draft will often be moved to draft namespace by a reviewer when you submit it for review, so you might as well leave it where it is. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Susan Hudson is better, it invites other users to collaborate. A personal draft as user sub-page would be like your User:LorriBrown/sandbox. –84.46.52.142 (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
David Biddulph I see it is where it should be then. Thank you for explaining the difference between to two. LorriBrown (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Waqar Ex

How to create a Wikipedia page? I'm trying from 5 days, I've done many edits and still it says create this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waqar Ex (talk • contribs) 13:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Read the steps there for how to request a creation or to create one yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles Graywalls (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The reality of "Requested articles" is that the wait time is slow-to-never. Looking at your contributions as Waqar Ex, there is no shown history of article creation attempt. Were you editing before you created a User account? Did you follow the steps at Wikipedia:Your first article? David notMD (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

William Stark (physician)#Death and legacy Was he seen as "mad," leading to the phrase " Stark-raving mad."?

I would like to insert the following in William Stark ( physician ) article . . . " His "impudent zeal" might have been seen as being "mad", leading to the saying that someone is "Stark raving mad "." From "The Nit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nit (talk • contribs) 09:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please don't. That is unsourced speculation, and unencyclopaedic. Dbfirs 10:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 Not done From the OED: "1640 ... Did not I say he's mad, starke raving mad, away with him." so it was in use in exactly this form a century before Stark was born. The actual origins go back a further thousand years to Old English. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
+1, dictionary.com about "stark naked": 1520–30; stark + naked; replacing start-naked ( start, Middle English; Old English steort tail; cognate with Dutch staart, Old High German sterz, Old Norse stertr ) –84.46.52.219 (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :Hello, The Nit. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for your question, albeit after the event. I have deleted this addition your made to the article on the grounds that it is complete speculation and totally unsourced. On what grounds did you think it was OK to add it, may I ask? We never accept guesswork or helpful random speculation here. We need sources to support stuff like that, and a few minutes of checking on Google would have shown you that your edit was nonsense, and that the use of 'stark mad' was published by John Skelton c.200 years prior to William Stark's birth (see line 50), and maybe well before that, too. Speculation that has been put forward by experts in reliable sources might be acceptable, but only if those sources are properly cited, but never, ever, guesswork. That's best kept to online question fora where anyone can ask and answer anything they like, with no editorial control of the quality of replies.
I fear you might also have got the 'wrong end of the stick' when we ask editors to sign their posts. We do not want any editor to add their username to content added into encyclopaedia articles, as you did. However we DO need you to sign Talk page posts like this one, please. Just type four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~) at the very end of your post. Then, when you hit 'Publish changes' your username and a timestamp will be automatically added each time. This is essential on talk pages so we know who has said what, and when, but never in an article itself. Hope this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stark_(physician) /* Death and legacy */ Was he seen as "mad," leading to the phrase " Stark-raving mad. " ?

Hi, Nick, sorry to trouble you again and apologies for getting things wrong, ~ I am an old fool who struggles with today's world. I gather then that you and your team wouldn't be interested in "new" notions, like : - the Ishango bone's description in Wiki that the line containing all primes is there by "coincidence" ~ which I think is false ( of course I can not prove it, but my route makes more logical sense than just "coincidence"; or how the Babylonians ( on Plimpton 322 ) could have found a simple diagram that led them to a generalised process that could produce ALL Pythagorean Triples. I guess that you would NOT be interested in such matters ? Hey Ho, thank you for your time, cheers, Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nit (talk • contribs) 15:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I will answer for everyone - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it lives and dies by only including content supported by references. What you added to William Stark (physician) has already been reverted. Same will happen to any other unreferenced speculation you add to articles. David notMD (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
And one particular kind of information which Wikipedia will never accept is original research, The Nit. It does not make any difference whether the research in question is by the world authority on the subject, or a self-taught loner beavering away in a library: until it has been published by a reliable source (independent of the researcher), Wikipedia willl not accept it. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

CredoHouse Ministries Wikipedia Page Help

Hi there,

I have been commissed by C. Michael Patton to write a page on Wikipedia about his ministry, Credo House. I've been reading the guidelines to write an article for Wikipedia but I'm not sure if my subject is notable by Wikipedia standards. Can you help me? How can I make a notable article about a Christian ministry?

Dylanwhittler19 21:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC) 5:32 PM Dylan Whittler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanwhittler19 (talk • contribs)

@Dylanwhittler19: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would point out that since you state you were commissioned to write about this ministry, you will need to read and comply with the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy; the latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement if you are being paid. In order to merit an article, the ministry will need to have been significantly written about in independent reliable sources that show how it meets the organization notability guidelines written at WP:ORG. If there are no independent sources, the ministry would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Independent sources would not include things like press releases, routine announcements, staff interviews, or other primary sources. As you are finding, writing a Wikipedia article is difficult; you may wish to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial which will explain the process. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Submitting A New Article

How do I give a new draft article a title and submit it for consideration and publication? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenose Gunner (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bluenose Gunner: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest using Articles for Creation to submit your draft(you can copy and paste it if need be). As a side note, did you not see the article Armoured fighting vehicle, which armored combat vehicle redirects to? 331dot (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

How do I add a personal bio then link it to another page?

I recently visited a page where names are highlighted and would link to a personal bio...How do I crate a bio and link it to another page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEV1216 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi TEV1216. I'm not sure which "page" you're referring to. Was it an article or was it a user page? Wikipedia doesn't really have any "personal bios" per WP:NOTWEBHOST; it has encyclopedic articles written about persons deemed to be Wikiepdia notable enough to have such an article written, and it has userpages which are pages where an editor can briefly introduce themselves and their Wikipedia activities to other editors.Now, the highlighting your describing sounds like what is called a WP:WIKILINK; this is basically a way to internally link one Wikipedia page to another. There are some different ways to do this and various guidelines depending upon the page in question, but you can find out more at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking and Help:Link. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

GEAPSU

Do not top-post. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have recently created GEAPSU for Steven Benjamin Damelin, a well known academic. The article providers correct references for everything. The article is not long. It is short and factual. By looking at Damelin on the web it is clear immediately how well known he is. Myself (George Andrews) have compared my page with 100's others in academia and find Damelin's article much better in most cases. The later articles lack references in many ways. Can you erdit this articlke and accept it? Thank you very much. Geapsu (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Moved from the top to where it might fit, {{collapsetop}} somehow clobbered the Table of Contents on Chrome for me (far too wide on the right side). –84.46.52.142 (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

im trying to create a page for present Thirakwa lineage of musicians in India

hi. i am really new here. i wonder how i can show my sandbox to you and get suggestions on a correction. its a quick question i know. honestly i am just checking out this resource to see if it does anything. i'm not really sure how strong the current down here is. maybe you can extend your support for my work by returning a hi to this mail. i'd be glad to hear more. 22:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)22:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)22:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)22:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)22:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Otinflewer (talk)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Otinflewer. Your sandbox is at User:Otinflewer/sandbox. One significant problem that I see with your draft is non-neutral language in Wikipedia's voice. Examples are "great", "pioneers", "eminent", "vibrantly keeping his tradition alive by developing unique styles", "illustrious father", and "well known to charm live audiences with his effortlessly rhythmic rambles on the Tabla and heartfelt mentions to the odes of his time in his clear voice". Please read about the neutral point of view which is a core content policy. You can quote respected music critics from newspaper A or magazine B or book C assessing this person's talents, but it is contrary to policy for you to write those things yourself. So, remove every trace of that kind of promotional language from your draft. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia, just made my first page.

Hey everyone, I just made a very brief Wikipedia page for a YouTube creator that I noticed didn't have one. If anyone would be able to help me clean up the page (for example the image doesn't fit the info box perfectly), contribute information or give me advice that would be amazing. The page is D'Angelo Wallace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Angelo_Wallace — Preceding unsigned comment added by WBPchur (talk • contribs) 02:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, WBPchur! Welcome to the Teahouse! Your page was not ready for the article main space yet, so it got moved to Draft:D'Angelo Wallace for further improvement (mainly sourcing → WP:SOURCES). Alas it's been deleted soon, as it was not only undersourced, but also unambiguously promotional, which is forbidden by Wikipedia policy – see WP:PROMO. Please see the note Athaenara has left on your talk page. --CiaPan (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@WBPchur: BTW, please WP:SIGN your comments at Wikipedia talk pages. --CiaPan (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I was removed from my Father’s Wikipedia page when he died

Hi there, My name is Christina Empress Ingram. My father, Dan Ingram, who was a Radio Disk jockey for over 50 years here in NYC died June 25th 2018. On September 8th, I was deleted from his Wikipedia page. This was the day after my evil Stepmother lied to myself and my Sister (telling us that there was no memorial or funeral) and honored my Father at a large event here in NYC with AFTRA and the Radio Hall of Fame. The timing was so crazy, because it literally happened hours after that Memorial occurred. I spoke with a Wiki volunteer who told me this was because I am not a notable person according to Wiki, yet, I am an international Dj who may not be considered to be notable enough for my own page, but yet, I see MANY profiles that have family mentioned. I also noticed that my Brother (who’s in cahoots with my Stepmom) is mentioned many times, but yet he’s not a notable person at all. My father approved his profile where I was on it while he was alive & I think it’s horrible I would be deleted once he’s dead. Please add me back or tell me what I can do. I’m very heartbroken about this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaiBK (talk • contribs) 04:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Christina. I did some looking for you and it appears that your name was removed by user:Nikkimaria under WP:LPNAME. You also may want to read WP:NOT. I understand your wish to be recognized, but Wikipedia has a specific set of policies to follow. Some editors follow them much more closely than others and that's why you will see such variability between articles. Although, if you can prove your notablility, may qualify for an article about yourself, although this is not something you should do yourself, as the clear conflict of interest may deter potential editors from helping you. I'm fairly new here myself, but I started by reading many of Wikipedia's policies and it will really help you understand what to do and why we do it. I'm sure a more experienced editor will come here and explain this better, but I wanted to let you know what I found and provide you with a few resources in the meantime Chanceober (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Your brother is mentioned by name in the article in context of having written a book about your father. As Chanceober described, Wikipedia policy is to not name names of children in the Infobox. (There is a reference there that links to the NY Times obituary, which names all children.) One option is to create a Personal life section in the article. Adult children could be named there, but not any under age 21. See Alan Freed and Casey Kasem as examples. David notMD (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Huge page glitch. Need experienced editor

Zineb needs the chembox rewritten. It does not show up properly and only shows the raw code, although in the edit preview it shows it properly. I attempted to fix it twice (yeah yeah I know, please spare me the lecture) and each attempt did nothing. My edit attempts won't hurt anything, but feel free to revert them if you have the ability to.

Chanceober (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Chanceober: It looks OK to me, as well as its two previous versions. Did you try to purge your browser's cache? --CiaPan (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@CiaPan: yes. It appears normal on browser, but when viewing on the app the chembox does not render. Cleared app cache, yet it made no difference. Only happens on this article. Will submit bug report to developers. Chanceober (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

This article provides insufficient context

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyurethane_dispersion Can someone take a look at this article please? It has been published but I want to improve it. It says multiple issues - personal reflective style argumentative and "provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject" . I am not sure where to go from here. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRALISTAIR (talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it is looking better - still not sure what the hell insufficient context means - reviewer having a bad day perhaps?

When the tag was placed five months ago the article looked like this, so it it really isn't hard to understand why. And there still isn't sufficient context for a non-expert reader, though I agree that it's been improved since November. --bonadea contributions talk 14:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
And there still isn't sufficient context for a non-expert reader, though I agree that it's been improved since November.  How the hell do I provide sufficient context? It really does not make sense. IMHO some of the stuff that has been removed has removed some of the context!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRALISTAIR (talk • contribs) 2019-04-13 (UTC)

Editing their own wiki?

I created Sam Retford in November 2018, and I just noticed that the subject of the article is heavily editing the page. I’m not quite sure what to do, but they’re disrupting the article... – DarkGlow (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, all of the info I added is correct, as I have sources to back it all up. Not sure why he wants a less developed article... – DarkGlow (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor restored the deletions. You will have to watch if that sticks. Also, because a person has created a User name Sam Retford it does not confirm that the editor IS Sam Retford. David notMD (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@David notMD: Noted. Also, just checked out your user page and thought I’d point out that your edit total is outdated, you’ve surpassed 16k :) – DarkGlow (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

New (and my first) article concept in sandbox, what now?

Hi, I have made a sandbox entry on the concept of 'sensebreaking' as this is a concept I wrote (part of) my PhD dissertation on and wanted to share this exciting concept with the rest of the world via wiki. I've cited some of the most important authors who have worked with this concept, as well as what it is related to (the concept of sensemaking). My question is: how can i get this article moved to wiki, for real, so out of the sandbox I mean? How would I know if the article is acceptable for wiki (in terms of quality, references, etc.)? I also marked it 'conflict of interest' for me because I have worked on this concept so have a special connection with it. Is that the correct use of 'conflict of interest'? Thanks in advance for any help on these two questions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabikaffka (talk • contribs) 14:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gabikaffka, and welcome to the Teahouse. Adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of your article will mark it for review. There's also a guide for new users who want to create their first article, at Wikipedia:Your First Article. The review process may take several weeks, since there are lots of articles waiting to be reviewed. If it passes review, the reviewer will move it to mainspace (where it'll become a published article) and if it doesn't meet the criteria, the reviewer will decline the page and explain what needs to be improved. Feel free to ask for more help either here or at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk if that happens. It's a bit late for me, but I might have a look at your article tomorrow and see if I have any tips. Good luck! Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
PS: For future talk page comments, you might want add a signature with four tildes (~~~~) so people know who to reply to. There's a bot going around but it doesn't always work everywhere.

Citing

When you add a new citation to an article, it will say at the end, Accessed [insert date here] or Retrieved [insert date here] or anything else. When you put that new citation in, do you make the Accessed/Retrieved date the same as you changed the citation or what? How would you get that date? I already edited an article where I needed to change the citation and I wanted to get some pointers so the next time I do something like that, I’ll know what I’m doing. So any tips and pointers for changing citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegioV (talk • contribs) 20:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi LegioV, welcome to the Teahouse. The documentation of many citation templates display Template:Citation Style documentation/url which says:
  • access-date: Full date when the content pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article; do not wikilink; requires url; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations. Not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is required for online sources, such as personal websites, that do not have a publication date; see WP:CITEWEB. Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, or news articles with publication dates. Note that access-date is the date that the URL was found to be working and to support the text being cited.
PrimeHunter (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Paul-Leon Jazet

I have edited the stub article Paul-Leon Jazet. Hopefully it will no longer be considered a stub. I am only an amateur occasional editor and forget the Wikipedia rules between edits. The article's layout could possibly be improved by making the list more concise. I have also added Jazet (he designed some of her costumes) to the Loie Fuller article so that the Jazet article is no longer an orphan. I am unsure whether this is the right place to post this message. BSP1BFP1 (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Resolved
 – and answered on Talk:Paul-Léon Jazet#Assessment. –84.46.52.142 (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding an Author's Disclosure to a Submitted Article

How do I add an Author's Disclosure to a new article that has already been submitted for consideration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenose Gunner (talk • contribs) 17:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bluenose Gunner. You are free to make improvements or other edits to a submitted draft. When a reviewer gets to it, they will review the version at the time. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not entirely clear what you mean by "Author's Disclosure". I am assuming by the fact that you capitalized it that you believe this is a specific thing? (BTW, even if that were true, under our Manual of style, it wouldn't be capitalized). I'm going to guess that the statement on your userpage is what you are speaking of, Bluenose Gunner? If so, you do not need to add anything to the draft or its talk page. It's only required that you disclose if you have a COI or are a PAID editor. To disclose that you do not is neither needed or advisable.
I see your draft has already been declined. There's usually a 3-4 week backlog, so I'd guess the quick decline came as a result of your post here. That's a good thing, as it allows us to start helping you based on specific issues which as a newer user, you didn't realize were issues. The draft in question is Draft:Canada and the Armoured Combat Vehicle (ACV). The reviewer's comments were that it was essay-like and likely contained WP:OR, an opinion I concur with completely. First, please understand that the purpose of any encyclopedia article is to summarize what others have written in reliable sources about the subject. That is accomplished by locating reliable secondary sources and paraphrasing their content. We draw no conclusions. We only report. Second, before a topic can even have an article, you must show the topic is WP:Notable. You do this by finding sufficient (generally at least three, but that can vary either way by the amount of information and the quality of each source) reliable, secondary sources that are detailed and totally independent of the subject, in this case Canada's military. What you appear to have written is a policy analysis, based on numerous sources that are primary, not secondary and are not independent. So the initial question you'll need to answer for yourself is this: "Do reliable secondary sources exist on the topic that I am writing about?" You'll be looking for sources such as books, academic journals, magazines and newspapers. If you can answer that with a yes, then when you start writing, you'll need to remember you are writing for our whole audience, which is the entire English speaking world. We target our articles generally with the assumption that the average reader will have an education level of "some college". You should not use jargon that would only be familiar to military folks and fans of military equipment. This is a long answer for which I apologize and I'll ask that other interested Teahouse hosts add to it. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Whether an article has to have references from a newspaper

I can see many pages on wikipedia whose references are not online newspaper link neither the references link are from some standard organization's web pages, but their references are some web sites/web pages which are private in nature and such websites doesn't belong to any not for profit or any government or online newspaper organization. So was bit confused as - what all kind of references are acceptable for a wikipedia article apart from online news paper links.

What all kind of references are acceptable for a wikipedia article apart from online news paper links as reference ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandanikri (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It depends on whom those web pages belong. If, for example, it is a personal page of a recognized expert in the field, it may be used. Ruslik_Zero 20:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Nandanikri, your question is answered by WP:RS, our guideline on reliable sources. It is a fairly dense guideline, so after reading it, feel free to bring your questions here so we can help you understand. In actuality, in many cases, newspapers are a poor choice for a source. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Sir I created a article who based on college name Residential shivram singh inter college.

Sir, I created a article is based on a school name Residential shivram singh inter college who has published but he didn't come in google search result whay? please explain it?-Thans you User:Hindustani raja ,1:59 ,14 April. —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hindustani raja: I can't fin an article by that name, but you created one that is still a draft, at Draft:Shiv Ram Singh Inter College. I have added some instructions to it, and a button to submit it for review so it can be promoted to Main space. But it is not quite ready yet - the references have a large number of errors.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The article that you created had several problems including a name at variance with sources, poor grammar, and faulty references, so it was moved to the draft where you and others may improve it before submitting it for review. Dbfirs 10:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I have a question.

Hello to the members or hosts of the Teahouse,

I just wanted to ask, if someone performs a vandalism act, and you spot it, even though you're not an admin or anything, and no-one else spots it, do I just erase the edit and notify an administrator or someone or do I leave it alone and notify an administrator? Also, for the humourous-purpose thing (something about whacking with a wet trout or whale or etc), if someone performs major vandalism, am I allowed to post that on the vandal's user page / talk page? This is what I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Whacking_with_a_wet_trout

If I'm allowed to whack if someone performs vandalism, I'd be happy. :-)

Thanks


This user is a member of the
Counter-Vandalism Unit.

AzCoy7 (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@AzCoy7: If you find vandalism, I hereby authorize you to fix it. If it is really extensive and you need some help to do that, feel free to ask for assistance by adding {{Admin help}} on the Talk page. You are also free to leave messages on the relevant User's Talk page to alert them to the situation, though a Trout is usually for people who did something stupid rather than vandals. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Question

I have another question.

I am a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. If I spot vandalism, and I visit the talk page of the vandal, am I allowed to notify them with a vandalism warning template? Or is this only for administrators?

Thanks,

AzCoy7 (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, AzCoy7, you may notify them. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
In answer to first question, as an editor, you are entitled to reverse vandalism. No need to contact an admin. And post a vandalism warning on their Talk page. Remember to leave a comment in the Edit summary. P.S. You should not be promoting your YouTube channel on your User page. David notMD (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Trouting is usually used humorously for experienced editors who make a mistake and should know better. There are more formal warnings for deliberate vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings for details. Dbfirs 10:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Question pabout Huggle

I'm new to Huggle. When patrolling recent changes, I would like to see the change as implemented in a Wikipedia article like I do with Twinkle. Is there a way I can do this? Mstrojny (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that some questions that were asked after this one have already been answered. Is there a particular reason why this one is not answered yet? Mstrojny (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Mstrojny. Because, as you know, we're all volunteers here, hosts are free to answer whichever question they feel competent to answer and have the time/motivation to answer. I regularly scroll up, looking for any unanswered questions and do my best to deal with them if nobody has replied for a day or two. I did see your question, but didn't feel I had sufficient knowledge with Huggle to proffer a reply. Maybe others did too. I'm sorry if that has been a frustration for you. Whilst we discourage users from asking the same question in different fora, I reckon after 24 hrs its perfectly ok to ask elsewhere. In this instance you might try the slightly more technical Help Desk. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, I have asked the same question at the help desk. I'm sorry for being impatient. I don't expect answers within a short time period like 5 minutes. Mstrojny (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Mstrojny Thats fine. Let us know what you find out. If you don't get a reply, I know that User:Shellwood deploys both HG and TW, and might be able to advise you. Regards from sunny Spain. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes Usually you say Regards from the UK, you must be in Spain right now. I recommend on your user page listing which countries you have visited and want to visit. Many users add that to their user pages. Mstrojny (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mstrojny: Yeah, that's right. I've gone over to Mallorca for a couple of weeks. A bit of bird watching, scrambling and bivouacing on the limestone ridges around Boquer Valley and the Serra de Tramuntana. Thanks for your suggestion re flags, but I'll probably just stick with a list of the 4000metre+ mountains I've climbed on my userpage. (They also serve as a prompt for articles to improve.) Adios! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Mstrojny I'm not 100% sure what your asking, do you mean you want to see the page after you have reverted it so you can see the result of your revert? I so then as far as I'm aware there is no way to do this automatically, but if its just for the odd one you can right click on the change in "History of your changes" panel and use "show", then use the "View in external browser" option. Alternatively, if i want to look at the article more I use the "View in external browser" option, then either sort out with Twinkle, or then use Huggle. The problem is edits (roll-backs and notices) are queued so at busy times you can have reviewed several edits before the edits complete. This is why some of us use both (hence {{User:Mlpearc/UBX/TwnkHugg}}). Huggle is really for just stomping on obvious bad edits, anytime you want to look at the article to see is there are other issues, see the result, I find it easier just to use "View in external browser" and continue that way. If however you want to always look at the result I would recommend using Twinkle with Special:RecentChanges (left hand menu) for your new edit source. You can filter to only show possible bad edits, and have it auto refresh. If your then CRTL-right click the diffs, you can open get one or more tabs to review, then review them, and then back to the list. Hope that helps :/ If I'm missed the point, let me know and I'll try to help. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you KylieTastic, that helps a lot! Mstrojny (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Twitter sources

How should one handle tweets as sources? Where do they rank in relation to other primary sources such as newspapers, radio and TV news bulletins, or books?Lord Inchiquin (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

See Self-published sources. Unless the tweets are being made by the subject of the article using a verified Twitter account (and sometimes not even then), tweets are not generally considered a reliable source. They may be used to supplement another, more reliable source. General Ization Talk 17:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
To add to this, @Lord Inchiquin:, self-published sources should not be used to confirm facts, but only to report that someone asserts something. So, you wouldn't used a tweet to support a statement that 48% of all car accidents are alcohol related, but you could use it support that someone professes to be Catholic.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 03:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Use Template:Cite tweet where appropriate (see above). Eagleash (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_939&oldid=892831893"