Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 776

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 770 ← Archive 774 Archive 775 Archive 776 Archive 777 Archive 778 → Archive 780

Company Wikipedia - Questions

Hi All - I love to consume wikipedia content and I've poked around making edits to some articles. Recently, I've taken a new (paid) job and I see that our organization's wiki entries might need some cleaning up. I do not plan on removing or adding any content, just condensing the confusing multiple articles into one. If I do actually want to tackle this, what is the clearest way to indicate I work for this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avocad-no (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Avocad-no and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read WP:PAID. To disclose, place {{paid|employer=Roku, Inc|article=Roku,Inc}} on your user page, and place {{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Avocad-no|U1-employer=Roku, Inc |Ux-client=Roku, Inc |U1-EH=Yes}} on the talk page of each article you edit on their behalf. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

scholarship

how to get full funded scholarship please i need you guys helpBash kid na (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bash kid na: The Teahouse is for help with Wikipedia, not with life outside of Wikipedia. We do not have scholarships. You may want to find a different site, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an advice forum. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello,Bash kid na, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Does my username violate username policy?

I was wondering if my username PorkchopGMX violates username policy, the GMX part comes from GMX Mail, where i signed up as PorkchopGMX. I liked the username and decided to use it on most places i signed up to. I signed up for a wikipedia account, and used the username PorkchopGMX on Wikipedia. I don't work at GMX Mail, nor do i have any affiliation with them, i just put it in my username because i liked it. Is this okay? If not i will change my wikipedia username. Thanks PorkchopGMX 16:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello there, PorkchopGMX, and welcome to our Teahouse. Thank you very much for being concerned and considerate enough of our policies to ask your question here. My take on it is that there is no problem whatsoever using those three letters in your username. I don't think it's too closely linked to be of any concvern at all. Assuming that "Porkchop" isn't itself used as an offensive or racist term in some countries (and I'm not aware that it is, and many others have used it), my only worry would be that you might now have given enough information away for someone to know your genuine email address and to make direct contact with you.
I don't know your age, but see that you are still in school. Wikipedia takes great care to ensure the privacy and safety of all its editors, especially those of children. So, please have a read of Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, and be aware that our helpful administrators can assist you if you have - or ever do - accidentally release any personal information here that you wish you hadn't (emails, address, phone number etc), and they have the ability to permanently remove such content from past edit histories - something that is only rarely done. It's even possible to email them directly with your concerns, rather than repeat information you'd probably not want to draw attention to publicly. Curiously, I've only just today had to advise another new editor that they might wish to consider changing their username because it might be violate our username policy as containing an offensive word. But in your case, I personally don't see any concerns other than those outlined above. See this bit of our username policy should you wish to change your account name. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)      
Thanks. The Porkchop part isn’t meant as offensive or any of that stuff. However, I will still rename my account because I don’t want people thinking I work at GMX Mail. PorkchopGMX 19:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Small Print

Please help. I have clicked some button somewhere and have got small print. How can I correct this please.Osborne 19:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Osborne, welcome to the Teahouse. Windows browsers usually have the shortcuts Ctrl+- for smaller, Ctrl++ for larger, and Ctrl+0 for normal size. Please remove the checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences. This will generate a correct signature with a link to your user page. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

how to use talk pages

new to wikipedia, want to know how to use talk pages so I can better find information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomad ninga (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nomad ninga, welcome to the Teahouse. See Help:Talk pages, but talk pages are mainly used for communicating with other editors and not for finding information. Help:Searching may be more useful for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The Age of "Discovery"

I get that the article on the Age of Exploration, probably unfortunately titled "Age of Discovery", is something that would inspire edit wars by its nature, and thus is protected. My question is how to get someone with the privilege to edit protected pages to change the mention in the article of the "Straight [sic] of Gibraltar" to the correct spelling "Strait". Now that I've seen it, that's going to bug me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Sherman, Esq. (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@William Sherman, Esq.: Corrected, thanks! Sam Sailor 15:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sweet. You rock, swabby. William Sherman, Esq. (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

For future reference, William Sherman, Esq., if you click on the padlock icon in the top-right corner of a protected article, it will take you to the instructions for making an edit request - in this case, Wikipedia:Protection policy#semi. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Clicking the "View source" tab will give both instructions and a button to submit an edit request. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:USERBOX For Wrestling Fans

Hi, I need some help here to create userbox, I want to create a user box as a Fan of WWE I want to create a user box for the fans(including me) of Sonya Deville and Mandy Rose. Thank You.

Especially needed for those who have sympathy for/ and are fans of these 2 WWE female wrestlers. CK (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi CK. The easiest is often to find a page doing something similar and modify the code. I would pick an existing userbox at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Wrestling and click edit to copy the code. Note that userboxes are only allowed to use images with a free license and not fair-use images. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Submission

How to submit a page for review??

Noname479 (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Noname479, I believe Draft:Sanjay Kukreja is the said article you referred to and which you have submitted for review; however it has been rejected due to subject has not established Wikipedia notability requirements and source are mainly primary instead of independent, reliable source. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
:Hi, CASSIOPEIA, can you please explain me what are primary, independent etc types of sources!

Noname479 (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


Noname479Hi, See below a simple summary of source types. Independent means content not written by or affiliated with the subject or source from subject web site or press release. Reliable means reputable fact-checking and accuracy source such as source from a major reputable newspaper (The Guardian) or publication house (Cambridge University Press).
* note: Wikipedia can not be the source. Pls see WP:NOTRS - "Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose (except as sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE)".
Type Info Examples
Primary A primary source provides direct or first hand evidence/knowledge about an event, work of art and account from people who are directly involved in a situation or a material written by such persons.
  • scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results
  • proceedings of meetings, conferences and symposia, speeches, oral histories
  • diaries, autobiographies, letters, Internet communications on email
  • government documents, original documents (such as birth certificate or trial transcripts) , census statistics, legal documents
  • eyewitness accounts, results of experiments, statistical data
  • archives and manuscript material, historic treateis
  • interviews, surveys, fieldwork, map, testimonies, case notes
  • original works art, photographs, audio recordings, video recordings, films
  • memo, diaries, autobiographies, personal narratives, plays, poems
  • data sets, technical reports, patent, surveys and polls
  • raw data sets,experimental research results, the periodic table
Secondary A secondary source gives information about primary source or original information or other secondary resources , which analyse, describe, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.
  • biographical works, histories studies
  • newspaper and popular magazine articles (may also be primary)
  • review articles and literature reviews, works of criticism, interpretation, commentaries
  • analyzes journal articles and research papers based on primary sources
Tertiary Tertiary sources provide overviews that index, abstract, complie or digest the primary and secondary sources. It presents the summaries content primary and /or secondary sources.
  • almanacs, fact books, chronologies, guidebooks, manuals
  • dictionaries and encyclopedias
  • handbooks and data compilations


Subject Primary Secondary Tertiary
Art Sculpture Review of the sculpture Encyclopedic article on the sculptor
History Diary of a prisoner of Iraq war Book on the Iraq war List of battles sites
Science Original research on nano technology Review of the research nano technology Nano technology abstracts
Thank you and cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

alt accounts

Can someone refer me to a steward on the Meta Wiki to golbally lock my alternate Doppelgänger accounts? If this is not possible what happens if my Doppelgänger accounts if they are compromised?Thegooduser Let's Chat 01:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The current list of stewards can be found at meta:Stewards. If a doppelgänger account is compromised, just the doppelgänger will be blocked indefinitely (however, if two accounts use the same IP address or same computer, it is possible for the second account to get caught in the block as well -- but there are ways to fix that). In most cases, the block would only apply to just one site. When I block people on this site, their account on Wiktionary or the French Wikipedia are not blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: Just make sure your accounts have a strong password which is not used at other sites. If you have received notification of a login attempt then it's common that somebody tries random passwords on random accounts. It doesn't mean you are being targeted. User request is not listed among the common reasons at meta:Global locks. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox to Article

Dear Sir,

Good day.

How do you publish an article written in Wikipedia Sandbox?.

Kindly do the needful at the earliest.

Thanks, Karthik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthik.md247 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Karthik.md247. Please add this template to your sandbox page:
{{subst:submit}}

That will enable you to submit your sandbox draft for review. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi Karthik.md247 and welcome to the Teahouse. You might like to read WP:Reliable sources and WP:Referencing for beginners, and add some in-line citations before submitting your draft for review. You could also improve the English by adding some definite articles ("the" is often omitted informally in some versions of English, but should always be used in an encyclopaedic article), and include a link to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for those of us who are not familiar with this concept. Dbfirs 10:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

help writing bio for ken heron

hi,

could I have help in writing the bio for ken heron please?

my attempts are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ken_Heron

many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:EC9:1000:4CA3:B68:A00E:7A4C (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You need to find more sources, 2A02:C7D:EC9:1000:4CA3:B68:A00E:7A4C. No amount of good writing helps when the problem is that this person has not been covered in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia to a significant degree. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up to Copyright question

I am trying to upload some images from a state archive, Florida Memory, to Wikimedia. Their statement of rights is:

https://www.floridamemory.com/photographiccollection/disclaimer.php

This does not seem to fit in any of the categories on the Wikimedia Upload Wizard, so I don’t know what to do. Thank you.

This was posted before, it got auto-archived, but I have not received help yet. deisenbe (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Deisenbe. The page says: "All photographs and images are offered under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0 indicating that there is no known copyright."
You should upload the images here c:Special:UploadWizard. Select: "This file is not my own work." Then "The copyright holder published this work with the righ Creative Commons license" and click "Creative Commons CC0 Waiver (release all rights, like public domain: legal code)". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you!

Create Draft as IP user?

Can an IP user create Draft for their self? If so, how, thank you. Hansonjay (t@lk) 09:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Ip's Can't create pages. Thegooduser Let's Chat 01:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Ian.thomson Ip's can't create pages right?Thegooduser Let's Chat 01:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
IPs can not create new pages, but they can use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation to create new articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
OP blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Raymondskie99. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raymondskie99 for evidence. theinstantmatrix (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Thegooduser and Ian.thomson:, IP Editors, that is, editors not logged in, can create new pages in the draft namespace, although they cannot create new pages in the article namespace, nor in most other namespaces. They cannot move pages from draft to article, but a reviewer will do that if a draft is approved. IP editors can edit existing articles and pages in other namespaces, unless they have been protected or semi-protected. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Ref is asking for a definition

Hello, I'm trying to fix a reference error in here Runescape#History and Development but no matter what way I look at it the ref definition and tag have everything put correctly!? Could someone check whether I've missed or overlooked something, thanks! 18:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinuKinuski (talk • contribs)

You placed the ref definition outside of the reflist template. MPFitz1968 fixed it here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Former Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman, Jr.

Dear Wikipedian,

I need help since I've only used Wiki for an edit once before. I work for the above named individual. We wants to add the following item to his bio on Wikipedia. Someone removed it. Here is the text:

He served as a member of the senior staff of the National Security Council under Dr. Henry Kissinger. The source for this statement is as follows:.

Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. National Security Council Folders 18-19 that contain correspondence from Dr. Lehman to Dr. Kissinger dated 12.9.70 and 6.29.72.

When I insert the edit and footnote (which I don't know how to do) the numbering of all the subsequent notes will be changed. I don't have a clue how to do that either and I don't feel confident about doing it right. So, can you help on both items?

I would be grateful for your assistance, Mark GeierTitta1920 (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires citations to be of reliable published sources, so that readers can, at least in principle, verify that they support what is claimed. Maybe I'm wrong, but "National Security Council Folders" don't sound like something that's been published. Can you find some other, published, source for the claim that he was a member of the senior staff? If you can, tell us here or in the article's talk page, and I expect some experienced editor will make the edit for you (it's not that hard, and the renumbering is automated). Maproom (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Are the documents you speak of publicly accessible at the Nixon Library? 331dot (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Here is a reliable source that confirms that Lehman was a staffer at the NSC. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the article, Titta1920. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Inline link

What is an online direct link that I should remove?I certainly will comply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.139.121 (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. This is the only edit by your IP address. I guess you refer to something said on a page. Please link that page. We have millions of pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

History merge (Monomelic amyotrophy)

I revised an article using my sandbox and need to carry out a History Merge.

I made a Peer Review request but History Merge is probably my big issue. Below is an edited version of my Peer Review request. The wordy drama version is Wikipedia:Peer_review/Monomelic_amyotrophy/archive1

HISTORY SUMMARIZED

so that I could revise at my leisure.

The revised article is almost triple in size and more than triple in references. I got good help for the article but am stumbling through all the WP ins and outs. When I started the sandbox project I saved frequently w/o explanation. In time I started getting edit help in my sandbox. After a couple of weeks it was ready.

I want to correctly transplant the revision from my sandbox. I read the Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves. BE BOLD does not apply. Please direct this request as needed.

Thank you Thank you GeeBee60 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello GeeBee60 and welcome back to the Teahouse.
If you were the only user to modify your sandbox, then there is no need for a history merge. Attribution is not necessarily carried by each individual edit made to a page, so one history entry for your modifications, when you merge your changes back into the page, would be sufficient to maintain attribution. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello — jmcgnh Others have contributed to my sandbox version. I do need help with a history merge. tnx GeeBee60 (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello again — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) I am going to let you off the hook, cut and paste this message to the history merges page / talk page. Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
You're right, because there were some other contributors who worked on it while it was in your sandbox, a single attribution won't do. Let's see what happens to your histmerge request. My one edit to your sandbox was not significant (a bot would have gotten around to it at some point to enforce NODRAFTCATS), but the others made more significant contributions. Reading between the lines of COPYWITHIN, it seems that you could list more than just one author on the copypaste move/merge back to the old page name, but histmerge will keep more detail. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

About the edits I've made.

Hi everyone, I'm a new user here on Wikipedia. Sorry if I bonked this up. Wikipedia has so many pages worth of information for various things. It all overwhelms me. I noticed the tea house was a place to ask questions, and that's why I'm posting here. I recently added two edits [1] [2] and both were reverted by the same user. My original edit was stating how GA was defined by William Labov. For the last sentence in the history and definition section [3] Labov states "By the 2000s, American sociolinguist William Labov concluded that, if anything could be regarded as "General American", it would essentially be a convergence of those pronunciation features shared by Western American English, Midland American English, and (Standard) Canadian English.[18]"

I went to add this over the previous edit, as the sourced content was by Van Riper, who as you can see here (on page 128 it talks about Western New England as General American) [4] was going by definitions used back in the 1950s. William Labov was stating information a half century more recent. I was originally fine with this revert. The user that reverted my edit then went on to add this source [5]. This newly sourced page includes Western Pennsylvania English as a "General American" variety. You can see for yourself in that source, as the map shows just about all of Western PA to be part of the General American area. The reason I brought this up, is because in his edit summary [6] he said adding Western Pennsylvania to the page, as I did here in this edit [7], contradicted the Atlas Of North American English. As you can see here on page 144 (in the last paragraph above the 11.7 chart) [8], which is a pdf file for ANAE, Western New England, which in my first revert I removed, was not stated by ANAE as to be a General American variety. To quote exactly from that pdf file "On the whole, Figure 11.7 shows that these vowel measurements are sufficient to separate the major regional dialects identified in the maps of this chapter, although the West, the Midland and Canada are not as clearly distinguished as other regions. If one were to recognize a type of North American English to be called “General American”, it would be the configuration formed by these three dialects in the center of Figure 11.7."

He then goes to revert my edit saying that ANAE doesn't include the Western Pennsylvania English in ANAE, despite Western New England not being included in ANAE. Can someone help? Is this selective editing on his behalf? I hope I have given enough evidence to present my case. Sorry if I'm over freaking and flat out wrong. SandyPetersen (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SandyPetersen. We cannot resolve content disputes here at the Teahouse, as this is a place for questions and answers about the process of editing Wikipedia, and we do not have that power. The correct place to discuss the content is Talk:General American, where no one has made a comment since January. As for your points, this is an umbrella concept in linguistics and various experts disagree about definitions and boundaries. Quoting from the article, "The precise definition and usefulness of the term continues to be debated, and the scholars who use it today admittedly do so as a convenient basis for comparison rather than for exactness." Accordingly, there can never be any 100% "correct" information. Instead, we summarize what the full range of reliable sources say, and it is a matter of editorial judgment and consensus building to come to an agreement about how best to summarize the various sources in a Wikipedia article. That is what article talk pages are for. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm done with the question and have decided to leave as is. I agree about your point ""The precise definition and usefulness of the term continues to be debated, and the scholars who use it today admittedly do so as a convenient basis for comparison rather than for exactness." SandyPetersen (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Just added a quote and a link to a page - is it ok and how much can I change?

Hi, I have just removed and edited a line of text and added a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunderland_Lustreware just wanted to check it was ok?

Also I am not sure how much I can change at any one time?

Thanks D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorwcn (talk • contribs) 11:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Editorwcn, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's an excellent question. We have a saying, be bold – but not reckless. It means you should always make changes you think are improvements, and not worry about breaking things. If someone else disagree with your changes, they can always revert your changes and the two of you have an opportunity to discuss it.
The changes you made were okay. Underdeveloped articles like this should be edited quite a lot, so don't worry about changing too much. But if you edit some well-written, long, and much-viewed articles, you should probably stick to small, incremental changes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Citations and help with denied article for creation

Hi

I wonder if somebody could help.

I have drafted an article in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Robert_Baxter but have been told this does not meet the approval for creation as it does not meet the minimum standard for inline citations. I'm unclear why and what to do next. All advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrienneengageneer (talk • contribs) 11:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Adriennengageneer. I think you need to have a look at what Wikipedia means by Notability. As far as I can see, not one of the references cited in your draft is an example where somebody with no connection to Baxter has chosen to write in depth about Baxter and been published in a reliable place. Each one of them is either just a listing, or is not independent of Baxter. (The _The Caterer_ references are based on interviews or press releases, and so are not independent.) Please understand that, in an article about William Baxter, Wikipedia has essentially no interest at all in what William Baxter says or wants to say about himself, or in what his friends, relatives, or associates say about him. A small amount of uncontroversial factual data (such as places and dates) may come from non-independent sources such as his or his company's website. But the bulk of the article must come from what people who are truly independent of him have published. You need to start with at least two or three such sources, and write in the article only what the sources say (though in your own words - you mustn't infringe their copyright).
In addition, the draft is not in neutral language. For example "one of their youngest ever Area Managers" is a kind of claim that requires not only a published source, but an independent source (I mean no disrespect to Baxter, but many superlatives are claimed that are at best dubious). In fact I don't see the claim in the cited source in the first place, but even if it was, I would not accept it from a partisan source. Similarly "the UK’s leading contract caterer" requires a reliable published source, independent of Baxter or his company. --ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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

This article says "the position of the two t**s on the female, almost on the b*****ks of the animal". It looked misleading and has no source so I checked. https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article-abstract/28/3/298/840477 Mmmarkkk (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kopparapu Duo Poets

I would like to centralize the discussion of Draft:Kopparapu Duo Poets here rather than on the talk pages of multiple reviewers. I reviewed this draft in a sandbox in April and declined it. At the time it was hard to tell what it was about because it did not have a well-formed lede and appeared to be about two people rather than about one subject. It is about two people who performed in public together. A few days ago, User:MUMACHA2203 improved it and resubmitted it and User:Legacypac declined it as not showing notability, and I said that it appeared to be written to praise the subjects rather than describing them neutrally. They have an article in the Telugu Wikipedia. I understand that each language Wikipedia has its own standards, and that inclusion in another Wikipedia is not evidence of notability, and that Telugu language sources are acceptable.

The author has since been discussing the draft at my talk page and that of User:Legacypac. I have had difficulty addressing and responding to that discussion, and it appears that the author is having difficulty trying to discuss in English, but I don’t know Telugu, and English is the language for discussion in the English Wikipedia. I stated that perhaps User:MUMACHA2203 would benefit from a co-author who is more fluent in English. (I tried to be diplomatic.) They then, evidently in good-faith error, created a second copy of the draft, and moved both drafts into article space as ready for article space. User:Discospinster then draftified one article as not ready for article space. User:CambridgeBayWeather then draftified the other article. I then converted one of the two drafts into a redirect to the other. One draft is now in draft space. User:MUMACHA2203 is continuing to post to my talk page and those of Legacypac and Discospinster. They say that the poets are notable, and that other poets have articles that were written to praise them. I realize that the author wants to have his poetic heroes memorialized, but I think that further discussion on the talk pages of multiple editors is not helping. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Great summary. Notwithstanding the claims of the creator I suspect the real reason this page was created was to support the release of a new book of these poems - a commercial purpose. The draft pretty much says no one paid any attention to them while they were alive or since which screams "not notable" to me. Given the AfC rejections and their decision to move it to mainspace twice, a return to mainspace for an AfD would be in order, or MfD it and push for a proper discussion on notability. Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Legacypac, Poetry doesn't sell; I do not think attributing commercial motives is reasonable.
Robert McClenon, I think your suggestion to editor to draft in native Telugu, and have translated to English, best. Might pick up better sources on the way.
I assume good faith and further suggest to both of you that an important cultural difference - besides language and Wikipedia standards - is likely at play. It is obvious from the source I found in seconds (and just added to Draft Talk page) that these poetic performers may have been among the last of their type, oral poets, and venerated as much as I venerate Homer. I made suggestions for an article I would love to read, with reliable sources in a foreign language if need be. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Paulscrawl - You refer to drafting the page in Telugu. There is already an article in Telugu. The author argues that as part of the reason why I should accept the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Robert McClenon I looked at Telugu article and from what I gleaned with Google Translate it has better chances. I asked (in English) for translation into fluent English, to be posted on Talk page of draft. Left summary note & link and pinged from draft Talk page. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Paulscrawl - Thank you for requesting a high-quality translation. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions about either the difficulty in discussing the article in English, or about posting essentially the same complaint on the talk pages of multiple reviewers? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Robert McClenon On language difficulties, I looked at posts and agree that another editor needed to collaborate. Perhaps translator will step in. See below for second question. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Etiquette Question

Is there agreement that if an editor has suggested that discussion about a draft article be continued in some public forum, such as here, or at the Village Pump, and has made that statement on their talk page, that it is not useful to continue to discuss on multiple user talk pages? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

In such a case, Robert McClenon i would think that the best place is on the talk page of the draft, but in any case split discussions are unhelpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Robert McClenon I think virtually all substantive discussions of article or draft content belongs on the respective article or draft Talk page. Other forums, like this, may be used for meta discussion, talk about Talk, user behavior, etc. and to solicit further input at source Talk page, but without all content-related discussion on most relevant Talk page transparency, history, and context are lost. Should a user post article-related content on my Talk page, after not reading my crystal clear warning template, I would simply cut and paste to article Talk page with a courtesy ping to the user. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Paulscrawl - I think that editors post on my talk page about AFC submissions without reading the banner because there is an AFC function that directs a comment to the talk page of a reviewer without the editor viewing the talk page. This has its advantages and disadvantages. I will inquire further. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Paulscrawl, User:DESiegel - That sounds like a good rule to have all of the discussions on the draft talk page, but.... how does that mesh with requesting other editors to comment on a draft? I sometimes come here to ask other editors to look at and comment on a draft. Does that mean that I shouldn't do that, or does that mean that I should request that they direct their comments to the draft talk page, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon and Paulscrawl:, I don't think that there are, or should be, inflexible rules about such things. I think it is reasonable for a reviewer to ask for quick feedback from other experienced editors here, or perhaps at the AfC help desk. Ideally, if the discussion is going to amount to an extended comment on the substance of the draft, it could move to the draft talk page, but sometimes that just won't turn out to be convenient. I think that avoiding split discussions is more important than where a discussion occurs. Talk page discussions stay with the draft or article page, while threads here are moved to the Teahouse archives after a short time. New users are less likely to see discussions in the TH archives, and the same applies to future editors of the draft (or article if it has been promoted). Yes, the AfC scripts don't emphasize the talk page as much as i would like - perhaps because they fear it would confuse new editors, or they fear no one will see and respond to such comments, which can happen. But once people are engaged in a discussion that is less of an issue, I think. This is perhaps a case where no one solution is ideal, and there is no one answer that fits all cases. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

A Possible Best Practice

It seems that the best practice might be, if the Teahouse (or Village Pump or wherever) discussion is significant, to copy the Teahouse discussion to the draft talk page. (If the conclusion was to accept the draft, it might be useful to move the discussion to the article talk page.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that we agree that "split discussions" are undesirable. In the case in point, the author of the draft was splitting the discussion by posting lengthy comments on the talk pages of three reviewers. This wasn't useful behavior by the author of the draft, but was not so out of line as to be a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have copied the recent discussions that I requested to the talk pages of the drafts, and will in general do the same in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Moving to Mainspace for AFD

NAC:Legacypac isn't interested in explaining, at least not here. I would still like an explanation somewhere, maybe my talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Legacypac says that "a return to mainspace for an AFD would be in order". Returned or moved by whom? I think that, for a reviewer or other third-party editor, moving a page from draft space to article space in order to nominate it for deletion is a terrible idea, disrespectful of the purpose of article space, which is that article space is the outward face of Wikipedia to the readers. If you don't think that a draft belongs in article space, don't put it in article space. Don't put it in article space just to take advantage of AFD. That isn't right. If you don't think it belongs in article space, leave it somewhere else. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If you don't think it belongs in draft space, go ahead and nominate it for MFD, with a valid MFD rationale. Using article space just for a deletion discussion is a terrible idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't take my words out of context. There are situations where a page should be retained or returned to mainspace to face AfD. As you know certian busybodies with no experience in Draft management prevent MfD from functioning to properly to deal with problematic pages. Where notability needs to be tested AfD seems to be the appropriate venue. Occasionally a page is Draftified instead of AfD'd in error. That decision should be overturnable. In a recent case Robert called a page a "fugative from justice" when the creator moved it out of AfC to mainspace than back to Draft when someone sought deletion. Frankly there are maybe several hundred thousand pages already in mainspace that deserve deletion right now and many more that are unreferemced and/or have countless other problems. I can't see much harm in an extra one sitting there unindexed (just like a Draft) for a week with an AfD tag while we figure out if it deserves to live or die and interested editors take a shot at fixing it. If the creator already placed it in mainspace what's the big harm in putting it back? Just look at all the other pages sitting in maknspace under AfD that may be found delete worthy. Why are they fine to be in mainspace while under discussion but a page that was moved to Draft is not appropriate to be put back in mainspace for proper consideration? Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Legacypac - How have your words been taken out of context? What are the situations in which you think that a page in draft space should be moved or returned to mainspace to face AFD? Please explain. I agree that there are several hundred thousand pages in article space that don't belong there. Is that a reason to add one more? I don't think so. Are you saying that questionable pages in draft space are such a dreadful burden on the precious research of draft space that it is better for them to be questionable pages in article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
We have discussed this before. At this point I feel you are not looking for advice or discussion but to get me to say something in a way it can be used against me. Try discussing this with User:DGG who can't be banned or sanctioned for his comments. Legacypac (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI Inquiry

User:MUMACHA2203 - Does your academic department have an interest in the publication of a book on the poets? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am getting messages after editing

I am getting messages after editing saying verify the source. So please help me.

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dragonpile. If you add content to Wikipedia, you should also provide a reference to a reliable source that verifies what you add. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

FileComp Article on Wikipedia

The article is flagged for lack of sources. I was employed by Jordan Baruch as GE Medinet's Marketing Training Manager. Since GE Medinet did not have a product at that time, it had no need for a sales force, and certainly no need for a Marketing Training Manager. While waiting for a product to be developed I had learned to program in TelComp. Jordan Baruch approached me to learn FileComp and train GE Medinet's newly hired application programming staff. Recognizing I was at a disadvantage since I had never programmed before, I learned how to write programmed learning manuals using B. F. Skinner's methods as a guide. I then applied them to develop a programmed instruction manual which was used to teach FileComp to the application development staff.

I found most of Wikipedia's article on FileComp to be accurate with the exception of "FILECOMP was a programming language developed at Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN)". Jordan Baruch was employed at GE Medinet at the time of the language's development and it is highly unlikely GE would have entered into a contract with BBN giving it ownership of FileComp. Ed Yourdon would have been able to confirm that (he passed away in 2016), but if Roberta Baruch (maiden name) is alive (Jordan's daughter), she might be able to confirm it. I taught Roberta FileComp when she did an intern stint at GE Medinet.

The FileComp article could be enhanced to identify that it had the same sparse array capabilities as MUMPS. I was never informed that there was a limit to the depth of the subscripts. FileComp was an interpretive language.

I do not recall FileComp ever being labeled FILECOMP.

I hope this is helpful.

Phil Duffy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.58.203 (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Phil Duffy. That article has had only nine edits in ten years, so there are no active editors of that article to discuss things with. Our policy no original research does not allow you to add information based solely on your own personal experience to the article. However, your expertise can aid you and guide you if you choose to improve the article. You must search for reliable sources that discuss this programming language, add them as sources, and summarize what they say. Please start by reading Your first article and feel free to ask other questions here at the Teahouse. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Question about dealing with long-term promotional editing

Hello. I think I might have identified an article where one or more IP editors have seemingly been adding, for about half a year, what reads like unsourced promotional material on a company in France. It seems this has not received much attention from patrollers. I have tried geolocating some of the IPs, and they are pinned to the same general area in France. Here are some diffs:

What is the best way for me to proceed in this and similar cases of possibly problematic long-term editorializing that has escaped patroller attention? I'm aware of WP:BOLD, so my guess is that I should remove what seems to me like problematic content and justify the removal in the edit summary. However, what should I put in the edit summary to avoid upsetting the editor(s) in case they happen to have been editing in good faith? It seems to me overly harsh to label this as "Removing promotional content" in this case. If they revert my removal, how should I respond? Is there some detailed best-practice example I can look at? And so on, and so forth. Thanks. Ivgnyl (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ivgnyl. Those edits are spamming the website of a commercial travel agency in France into an article about Sports tourism worldwide. That is completely unacceptable and that type of spam should be reverted immediately whenever you see it. Be polite but firm in your edit summaries. Your proposed edit summary is not overly harsh. It is completely appropriate in cases like this. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for answering my question. I have tried to remove the unsourced and promotional content from the article. If the IP editor returns, I will probably ping you for more help with this kind of interaction here, if you don't mind and if the usual warning templates don't work out. Thanks! Ivgnyl (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Tools and tips for adding geocoordinate data

I've done some reference work on endangered historic site, Dew Drop Inn (New Orleans, Louisiana) and want to learn best practices, tools and tips for adding geocoordinate data. I am comfortable editing Wikidata (Q25212557 - WGS84 needed for 'coordinate location' statement) if that is more robust solution. Thanks! - Paulscrawl (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit: perhaps an infobox? Which would be most appropriate? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Paulscrawl. Please read Wikipedia:How to add geocodes to articles which should offer answers to your question. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen328, That helpful article lead me to Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates for many options and thus to user Teslaton's great GeoLocator Project (tool at GeoLocator), which offers great features and superior documentation. Best thing about it, to my mind, is roundtipping of Wikipedia coordinate templated data, for ease of future refinement of initial efforts. Highly recommended. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Key Lime Pie

I just looked at the Page about Key Lime Pie. There are some gross inaccuracies with the pictures displayed on the page. I wouldn't presume to edit these but I wanted to bring it to someone's attention. Key Lime Pie is never served with meringue and most certainly is NEVER, EVER green. It came to the keys with workers who came over from the Bahamas and is an adaption of Bahamian Sour Orange pie. Whew...had to get that off my chest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2560:4190:30E1:BBA0:1634:3AD3 (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I agree that the photos in the article are not the best, but our articles reflect what reliable sources say. I am the main writer of an article about a culinary topic Salade niçoise, where there is great disagreement about which ingredients should be used in the dish. Wikipedia articles need to reflect both sides of a controversy, which I tried to reflect in that article. When I did a Google search for Key lime pie sources, I found an article in Southern Living, that describes the controversy about meringue vs whipped cream as an issue that might start a riot. There are clearly two sides rather than a single answer.There are recipes from notable chefs that include meringue, and those from other notable chefs that exclude meringue. Martha Stewart has recipes both ways. So, your statement that "Key Lime Pie is never served with meringue" is an expression of your legitimate opinion, but not a statement of fact. All that being said, the current version of the article is weak and can definitely be improved. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I've eaten green Key Lime pie, with meringue yet. Ravenswing 07:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Is it about this page: Key lime pie? --CiaPan (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes. And the key photo is not green. The article can probably do without the secondary photo, which is a slice of stacked KLPs, middle one dyed green. Both no topping and meringue appear to have some history as options. I do agree that whipped cream or Cool Whip as toppings is an abomination. David notMD (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems to me perfectly obvious that KLP would never be served with merengue because if it got on the floor the dancers might slip. EEng 19:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Help needed with editor who is persistently removing valid input

Hello. I'm not sure if this is right place to raise this problem but I've followed directions from the "Help" link on the main page.

I've somehow become involved in an argument, about some relevant content I've placed in two current event cricket articles, with someone who seems determined to prevent my contributions. Please see Pakistani cricket team in Ireland in 2018, Pakistani cricket team in England in 2018, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket and User talk:217.35.245.243. I understand the site has rules about "edit warring" and that is what has arisen here.

The information I've added is completely relevant as it concerns the absence from international matches of Pakistan's outstanding player. The other editor says it is "hearsay" and "original research", which is not so at all (check the sources). I went to User talk:Lugnuts, his/her talk page, to try and discuss the point but the first thing I see there is an aggressive, confrontational banner which expresses an obvious view that anyone who disagrees with him/her is "scum".

The situation is ridiculous. Do you want "IP editors" to contribute valid, useful information to improve articles for the benefit of your readers? Or not?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.245.243 (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The bigger issue here that this IP is almost certainly that of a banned user. Their ability to know several of the more technical aspects of WP and wiki-terms without any previous editing experience are the red flags here. Others share my concerns on this LTA. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
That is both a lie and (the LTA thing) a gross exaggeration. I never said I have no previous editing experience. I said IP addresses frequently change. That implied, as it was meant to, that I have had many different IP addresses over a long period of time but I am not going to start preparing a list of them or even finding the last one, which was a few weeks ago. I know some IP editors are vandals, but I am not. The Yasir Shah information is verified and is not irrelevant, though I would listen to a reasonable argument about whether it is actually useful. No wonder the site has such a bad reputation with people like you and your clique (the "others" you mention) claiming control of everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.245.243 (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try to help a bit with past IPs. One I distinctly remember doing this year was about the Quaker history of Airton. That edit is dated 18 January in the page history so that IP address was mine. I've used the site since then but nothing significant and certainly nothing disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.245.243 (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
"Nothing significant and certainly nothing disruptive"? Really? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, really. I have no idea who you think I am and it's clear that the cricket project thinks of itself as a law unto itself, so this "discussion" is a total waste of time. In any event, my IP has changed again because we had a connection failure earlier on, so there we go and I've done another good faith edit since it happened. If it really means so much to you people to take Yasir's injury out of those two articles then just do it. I've nothing else to say about the matter except that this site fully deserves its poor reputation. And this IP will be gone in a moment too (hub off) for our security. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.102.80 (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

HELP PLEASE!

Hello, my name is Theodore I wrote a draft in wikipedia about an albanian book, but i can't move it to an article! I need help because it is for a school project tomorrow! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodhoram (talk • contribs) 00:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Theodhoram: welcome to the Teahouse. As your draft is in Shqip, it cannot be added to the English-language Wikipedia - instead, go to https://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki , which is the Shqip version. I don't know what the local guidelines are for writing articles there, however, and you should try to find that out before adding the article. Good luck! --bonadea contributions talk 00:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Theodhoram. I am sorry, but Wikipedia editors will not ignore our policies and guidelines just because you have a deadline at school. I assume that you are talking about Draft:Mediamorfozë dhe metakomunikim, which appears to be written in the Albanian language. This is the English language Wikipedia, and we do not accept articles in other languages. I suggest that you submit your article at the Albanian Wikipedia. You can find it here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Application

I was wondering this for a long time, how can you apply to be a Wikipedia Moderator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor0p76 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's how, Connor0p76: Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Connor0p76: I noticed that you started an RfA to become an administrator. While you have not successfully transcluded your RfA, I would advise you not to try to do so and instead withdraw your nomination. Being an administrator requires, generally, at least thousands of edits, years of experience and knowledge of nearly all aspects of Wikipedia policy. You currently have 11 edits, and while you mention that you have been editing anonymously, I doubt that will change much. If you were to proceed with your nomination, it would definitely not pass. Please read the guide to requests for adminship; I think you misunderstand adminship as something "easy to get" rather than something only the most experienced users apply for. To withdraw your request, please place {{db-g7}} at the top of your nomination page. However, please don't let this be a discouragement from editing Wikipedia. Almost all aspects of dealing with vandalism (or "graffiti" as you call it in your nomination) require no administrative privileges. You can see this guide, WP:VANDALISM and WP:CVUA for more information. Thanks! Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 01:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Trying to add to list but doesn't seem to stick?

Hello fellow tea fans,

I'm trying to wikilink Arbonne International page on List of multi-level marketing companies. I was able to edit and put Arbonne's name into the table, but then it doesn't seem to still "be there" for me to save edits? I thought I satisfied the criterion for editing the List page but perhaps not? Could you please let me know what I'm doing incorrectly? Thank you so much! SunnyBoi (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SunnyBoi. You did not wikilink your list entry, so another editor reverted you, assuming there was no article about Arbonne International. Try again, being sure to wikilink the entry. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen328! It wasn't showing my change in the preview changes, but I think it has worked now. I appreciate your help! SunnyBoi (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_776&oldid=1073153965"