::::{{ping|David Biddulph}}, thank you. So i should request the article there? [[Special:Contributions/185.43.229.118|185.43.229.118]] ([[User talk:185.43.229.118|talk]]) 12:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
::::{{ping|David Biddulph}}, thank you. So i should request the article there? [[Special:Contributions/185.43.229.118|185.43.229.118]] ([[User talk:185.43.229.118|talk]]) 12:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::You can write a draft version of the article at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]]. You don't need a user account to do that. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em">– [[User:Finnusertop|Finnusertop]]</span> ([[User talk:Finnusertop|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Finnusertop|contribs]]) 16:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::You can write a draft version of the article at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]]. You don't need a user account to do that. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em">– [[User:Finnusertop|Finnusertop]]</span> ([[User talk:Finnusertop|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Finnusertop|contribs]]) 16:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::: {{ping|Finnussertop}}, thank you. The link is really helpful. [[Special:Contributions/185.43.229.129|185.43.229.129]] ([[User talk:185.43.229.129|talk]]) 21:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::: {{ping|Finnusertop}}, thank you. The link is really helpful. [[Special:Contributions/185.43.229.129|185.43.229.129]] ([[User talk:185.43.229.129|talk]]) 21:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
== I want to update of my company picsoam on wikipedia How? ==
== I want to update of my company picsoam on wikipedia How? ==
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_school The article for public schools is called 'state schools', a term which, evidenced in the lead section, is only used in England and Wales. I feel the article should be moved to 'Public school'. Thoughts?
It's not so easy. The term "public school" is overloaded, so that page is a disambiguation page. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs) 05:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could make State school a disambiguation page too, but then we would have to find a new title for this article. Maybe Schools funded from taxes? We could then cut out some of the convoluted explanations. Dbfirs 15:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we would get consensus for that move. I was suggesting that both terms are ambiguous, but I can't think of a good alternative title. Dbfirs 09:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, excuse me. I was educated at an English public school which was founded in 627 AD. It is not a state school and never has been. That meaning of "public school" is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in UK, and may be also in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. "Public school" and "state school" are ambiguous terms. They mean different things in different countries. There is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for either. Remember: It's all about the readers. Narky Blert (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said, though I've no public school background. Perhaps you intended a shorter indent? Dbfirs 18:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, "private school" is reasonably unambiguous, so it's just the opposite that needs clarification. "State-funded school" might work, regardless of what "public" means to a particular reader. (Though there may be private schools with partial govt funding.)
Hi. My submission was declined by Bradv (talk). He was nice to talk about it, but we came to the conclusion that he doesn't have enough information to be able to accept the submission because it has Russian sources. Bradv suggested to find Russian speaking editor, so here I am. Are there any?
Welcome to the Teahouse, Antonzaitsev. I don't speak Russian, but I just wondered why the "retrieved" dates for some of your web references are from 2013 and 2015, when you only just wrote the draft. Have these references been copied from some other article? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cordless Larry and TinkleBear. Yes, they are re-used references from the Russian article. Should I go to Contributions, then Translation section (beta-feature) and start over? Or should I edit the current draft: 1) make another edit with the summary saying it's translation and linking to the original, 2) place the template on the talk page, 3) and then re-submit? --Antonzaitsev (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the beta content translation tool is operational at the moment, Antonzaitsev, but the second option with the edit summary and template will satisfy the requirements. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Antonzaitsev. I made a number of edits to your English Topface draft. A couple of them introduced new sources written in English, and I also found that a couple of your original Russian references had English versions.
By the way, the draft currently says that Filatov & Co started off by buying a VK app called "FaceRate", and then the draft goes on to say that the name of that app in Russian was «Лицемер». My understanding (please correct me if I'm confused) is that «Лицемер» means "Hypocrite"! So is "FaceRate" just a semantically unrelated English name, or something? Just curious whether you knew what's up with that.
On Topic: Just to be clear, I'm no ace Russian-English translator. Just a random struggler. Good luck finding what you seek! --TinkleBear (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's debatable. The literal meaning of the Russian word «Лицемер» is "the one who measures/tries on faces". This play of words, I assume, was the reason the app had its name in the first place. It's awful naming anyway, the more so as "Hypocrite" doesn't make any sense to English speaking person.
I would like to completely edit an article, to the extent that it is much more accurate and complete and will end up considerably longer. What is the best way to go about this? Should I simply start editing the existing page, or would it be best to start from scratch and have the page replaced? The article is a biographical article about a scientist and physician (Robert O. Becker) who made much more impact than is currently indicated.Patricia416 (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Patricia416: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are probably different ways you could go about doing what you would like to do; if it were me, I would draft the changes in my sandbox first and then propose them on the article's talk page for other interested editors to weigh in on first(by inviting them to view my sandbox). If you are using a computer to edit Wikipedia, there should be a 'Sandbox' link at the top right of the screen.
You could also simply be bold and make the changes, but you would need to be prepared for them to be examined by other editors after the fact instead of before.
If you haven't already, you may wish to read Your First Article which might help you. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors have contributed to the article over seven years, so I wouldn't advise you to replace the whole article without consensus (using the talk page as explained above). If you do decide to edit the article directly, and have the patience, I would make just a few of the most important changes first, and see what reaction you get from anyone watching the article. Dbfirs 22:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In support of D's recommendation. The Becker article has been contentious, as can be seen by past edit history and discussions in Talk. Suggest you read all the Talk first, then edit the existing article section by section, adding valid references as you go. Adding more to the list of published works is NOT a way to improve this article. David notMD (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To put it more bluntly – many editors have been involved in the Robert O. Becker article, and have strong views about it. They have not all agreed with each other. But if you propose removing the entire article and replacing it with your own version, it's likely that they will combine in opposing you. Maproom (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, you have just joined Wikipedia, and this is the first article you intend to edit. So I will double down on my caution - instead of starting with changes to the article I now suggest you start a new section in the article's Talk, and propose what you intend to do there. And if you do end up changing the article and another editor reverts your changes, do not blindly re-revert. That pattern is called edit warring, and can get your warned and even temporarily blocked from editing. David notMD (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! Your responses are very helpful, and I will heed your advice.Patricia416 (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Removal
I made an edit to a page. The original material wasn’t very good and after seeing the film and looking at Plot on Wikipedia I decided to add my own plot summary. I’ve just looked at the page again and my edit has been replaced by some kind of bot which seems to have replaced my edit with the previous information. How does Wikipedia determine the best edit of information? Could a situation arise where (A) makes an edit then (B) disapproves and edits (A)’s work, which then leads to (A) editing (B)’s work and so on ad infinitum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauferal (talk • contribs) 21:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Beauferal - welcome to our Teahouse. The plot details that you made to Mommy (2014 film) was not undone by a bot - that was a subsequent, minor edit. Another more human user, Ribbet32, reverted your edit, leaving a brief edit summary suggesting that he/she thought the plot expansion was not appropriate. I can't tell you why - but often enthusiasts for a film or book can tend to over-expand a page with plot summaries that are unnecessarily detailed, or poorly-written. (I should say that you did not breach our guidelines on plot length, which says "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." It started at 285 words, and you brought it to 608 words. I also think that, given a few small puctuation tweaks, both plot summary versions seemed quite acceptable, though neither made me we want to go and watch the film!)
Regarding the scenario of two editors reverting each other again and again - now, that can get one or both into real trouble. We call it edit-warring, and swiftly re-reverting an edit can result in them being blocked. If you read the edit warring link, you'll see we have a strict policy on this, called the three-revert rule. So what to do? If you disagree with an edit or a revert, the best thing to do is discuss it on that editor's talk page, politely seeking an explanation and simply explaining what improvements you'd like to make. Remember that you both want the same outcome: an improved article of interest to readers that's factually correct and not laced with opinions. Storming in saying, "what the ****hell did you do that for?" is the wrong way for anyone to going about gaining agreement. So, if editors do have concerns, we ask and expect them to discuss and reach some form of consensus. Of course, you can seek consensus on the article's talk page if you prefer, which lets other editors express their opinions, too. There's also nothing wrong in putting your proposed text on the article's talk page and seeking consensus from editors before posting it. I hope this helps to make things clear. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Nick Moyes: for your analysis. I didn't realize the plot was that under the 400-word mark. I was getting used to guarding against major plot expansions from clowns who wanted paragraphs about one minute of the ending, including how abrupt it was, but that we see the hallway and Born to Die is playing. @Beauferal: your edit has been reincorporated, but please keep in mind WP:PLOTSUM and WP:NOR. Analysis and interpretation without references ("his internal unexpressed passions", "more interested in familiar happy party orientated music") Ribbet32 (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks you to both of you, Ribbet32 and Beauferal. It sounds like you're arriving at a good balance of contributions. Nick Moyes (talk)
Thank you both for your explanations and advice. Very helpful and I’ll do some reading before editing anything else. Merry Christmas!
Hello, Beauferal. Just to let you know that I have reverted this addition you made to Lovely, Still, because it appeared to be your own personal opinion on the film, rather than part of a summary of the plot. Please see WP:NPOV for some guidance on this broad topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Modules in templates
What is the syntax for connecting one module to another using "module=?"Georgia Army VetContribsTalk 21:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gaarmyvet. Whilst we'd like to welcome you to our Teahouse, I think maybe your question might be a bit too technical for this help forum, and that you would be better off repeating it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). It has a facility to search its archives, although I couldn't find anything there that helped me understand your question any better. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gaarmyvet, if you are talking about info box templates, I may be able to help. John from Idegon (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm not sure what you want and it probably depends on the used templates if it's possible. Can you give an example of what you want to achieve? I guess it's about nesting infoboxes and not about a page in the Module namespace. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently defending myself against a fake report made against me alleging sock puppet abuse. I know I'm innocent and it's just a case of a disgruntled editor seeking to be disruptive. However, I wondered if there was any advice on how to defend against such attacks. (It's my understanding that false claims made against someone with little or no evidence are considered to be personal attacks.) Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for trying, but that is already the very first place I was guided to when I initially received this: investigation notice. I was actually hoping to get some more in-depth guidance than what is provided there, (which isn't much). Huggums537 (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realize nobody else has responded to this query anyway, but I thought it would be a courtesy to let others know the investigation just closed in my favor. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
document evidence
This is a really niche point. The entry for a particular person has the spelling (European accents) at variance as to how the family of the person write their surname.
I have a document that confirms how the name is spelt but it is not a published document for me to cite. How can I prove that the name is not spelt correctly, using this document, so that it might be changed?
Heysford (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Heysford. It is very helpful to mention a specific article when asking such a question. The general principle is that Wikipedia summarizes what published reliable sources say about the topic. If published sources about this person spell the name in a way that you consider wrong, then so too will Wikipedia. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I do get that. The document I have was produced by the family of this person but I am no longer in touch with them. Again, I realise this is terriblt niche and the times just a circumstance occurs is very rare. Can I provide a scan of the document to be verified by a senior editor? Heysford (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ပအိုဝ့်လူမျိုး google translates (GT) to "Pa-O people"
The current version:
Pa'O people(ပအိုဝ်ႏစွိုးခွိုꩻ) GT to "Pa"
Burmese: ပအိုဝ်းလူမျိုး GT to "အိုဝ်ႏ စွိုး polluted ꩻ"
"polluted"? something does not seem correct. I don't know enough to correct this, if so needed. Is there someone who can validate/fix this or get the attention of someone who can? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about this either, Jim1138. But I would caution against relying on Google Translate. Particularly for isolated phrases, it can turn up completely, ludicrously, wrong answers, because it works on statistical analysis instead of (or as well as) dictionary lookup. This (from LanguageLog) is a particularly ludicrous example. I have no idea if it has happened here, but if for example there is an online hate campaign against the Pa'O, it's perfectly possible that GT could have logged the translation of a phrase with their name as something vile. --ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This: ပအိုဝ်းလူမျိုး is exactly the title of the corresponding article in Burmese Wikipedia: my:ပအိုဝ်းလူမျိုး, so I suppose it's correct, whatever GT may say about it... --CiaPan (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Oh, forgot to ping: Jim1138. --CiaPan (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Must have mismatched something... --CiaPan (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About perfecting my article RaZoRWrAiTh
How can my amazing article "RaZoRWrAiTh make it permanently to Wikipedia?Of how great it is and how much faith I have in it( And I know personally it's that godly and people would love to read and learn about it in full force!)It's a story and name to be remembered forever!
@RaZoRWrAiTh: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have a few comments. Please note that autobiographical articles are highly discouraged per policy at WP:AUTO, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. Your language above and in the article is favorable and promotional. Wikipedia is not social media for you to promote yourself or to advance your music career. I would also note that if "Currently he's seeking to land a major label record deal" is accurate, it is likely too soon for an article about you here.
The draft does not indicate with independent reliable sources(sources not associated with you in any way) how you meet the notability guidelines for musicians described at WP:BAND. Please review them to see if you meet at least one of them. If you do not, it will not be possible for their to be an article about you here at this time. If you do meet at least one of them, it is strongly advised that you allow others to write about you. The only way your draft would be accepted is if you forget everything you know about yourself and write the draft based only on what independent reliable sources write about you, without using promotional language. This is usually difficult for most people to do about themselves. I am sorry if this information disappoints you, but your draft is not acceptable in its current form and I think it is unlikely it can be made so from what I see now. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored that content – I see the page it was copied from says "The contents are available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license." My apologies to Fairchristabelle. Maproom (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, an acceptable reason for restoration is that it originated with Wikipedia. Had it gone the other way, it would be a problem, as CC BY-SA 4.0 is not an acceptable license.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I do not understand is how can I be accused of copyright infringement by using a piece of original research (that's research undertaken by me) that has multiple, primary sourced citations? Where is this "warning" that I'm supposed to have received? What in God's name are you people about?
FairchristobellFairchristabelle (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fairchristabelle, we can't just take your word for it that you are the author of that paper, and I would hope that you could understand why that is the case (I am reminded of On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog). If you are the copyright holder, you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to donate the material. However, please note that it is often not appropriate to use material from an academic-style paper directly in a Wikipedia article. For example, an academic paper usually contains original research and analysis, whereas an encyclopedia article should just summarise the existing literature on a topic (perhaps including the academic paper in question). See WP:NOTESSAY on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whose word would you take? I am the owner. Copyright registration within five years of first publication creates a legal presumption of ownership and validity. While copyright registration does not prove ownership of copyright, this legal presumption of ownership and validity constitutes a prima facie proof (on first appearance). Who is supposed to "donate"?
My name is Maurice J. Halton MA PhD - I am the author of the paper/article entitled "William Lever and Edith Rigby An examination of the evidence relating to the burning of Roynton Cottage at Rivington, Lancashire on Tuesday 8th July 1913"
If anybody needs to know if I am willing to allow Fairchristobelle to cite my research, just email me [mauricehalton@gmail.com]
I am pretty sure that we are going to fall out big time
TTFN
Fairchristabelle (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Fairchristobelle (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that anyone could be claiming to be you, Fairchristabelle. How would you like it if that was the case? This is why we have the copyright donation process, which includes checks to ensure that are are who you say you are. I provided a link above, so if you want to donate the materials, then you can do so by following the instructions there. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: permission is not required to cite your research, but it is required to use large parts of it word-for-word. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The other problem is that anyone could be claiming to be anyone. My contribution has many cited sources - what we historians call "primary sources" - which are usually acceptable to our academic peers. Antiquarians and amateurs like you are evidently confused by such originality. Do you want me to ask the various libraries, archives and museums if I can quote them as contributors? What exactly do you want? More to the point, what do you not want? What do you consider to be "my research"?
As previously stated, Fairchristabelle, there's no need to get permission to cite or selectively quote sources, but you can't copy large amounts of text from a source that is subject to copyright, without that material being donate as described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. On the research/analysis point, I will give you a brief example. The text of Edith Rigby, before it was blanked, contained the sentence "However, although Roynton Cottage was luxurious – even palatial – compared to the homes occupied by most of the inhabitants of the small industrial towns it overlooked, when measured against Sir William's other houses, it was relatively frugal". Now, that is expressing an opinion in Wikipedia's voice, which isn't allowed. Opinions have to be attributed to their authors, so a better way to report the information would be to write "According to Maurice J. Halton, although Roynton Cottage was luxurious – even palatial – compared to the homes occupied by most of the inhabitants of the small industrial towns it overlooked, when measured against Sir William's other houses, it was relatively frugal". It's a subtle difference, perhaps, but an important one. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"... you can't copy large amounts of text from a source that is subject to copyright ..." if I cite myself, would that be copyrighted copyright, or an infringement thereof? Can I look at myself in the mirror? Can I, in fact and logically, copy text from myself?
By the way, I think I have worked out who you are.
Citing and copying are different matters. You can copy text from your own work, as long as you provide proof that you are who you say you are by following the simple instructions provided. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, another issue with using this source text is that it appears to be self-published on your own website, Fairchristabelle. See WP:SELFPUBLISH on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Citing and copying are "different matters"? Gosh! And "this source text is that it appears to be self-published"? What about all the sources that have been cited [you can read I suppose], and what about the whole article that was published in the Bolton Evening News in June 2013? If I undertake a piece of original research - in my capacity as a Doctor of Philosophy and therefore properly referenced and cited - do I need to get some local antiquarian to validate it? Am I who I say I am? I ask again, what exactly do you want? I give you:
^Halton, Maurice J. "New light shed on 100 year-old mystery of one of Bolton's most notorious historical events" The Bolton News [Bolton] 13 July 2013:[accessed 28 Jan 2017: http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/10530886]
What's wrong with it is that it links to a "Sorry - We can't find that page" message. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well the citation is as follows:
Halton, Maurice J. "New light shed on 100 year-old mystery of one of Bolton's most notorious historical events" The Bolton News [Bolton] 13 July 2013:[accessed 28 Jan 2017: http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/10530886]
My question was "Can you tell me what is wrong with this citation? (in your own words, of course)"
Engage? (take your time)
For what it's worth, Cordless Larry, I'd suggest disengaging, this user does not want to be helped. This is the teahouse, where we try to minimize conflict, so I'll engage with this user on their talk page instead of here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A question for Floquenbeam - what do you think it's worth? what do you think your snide remarks are worth?
Hello, I am trying to submit my first draft article for review, but I'm having problems. When I click on the 'submit your draft for review' button a pop up appears telling me to 'press the save changes button at the bottom of the edit box'. However, I can't find the save changes button. I suspect I've done something wrong, but I've no idea what! The draft is in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HCornish/sandbox , any help would be much appreciated! Thanks HCornish (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. You've done nothing wrong;, but by contrast the people at the Wikimedia Foundation have confused the issue by changing their software without considering all the consequences. The button that used to be labelled "Save changes" is now labelled "Publish changes", but not all of the various instructions that refer to the old name of the button have been changed. The "Publish changes" button doesn't "publish" the draft to article space, but in this case just allows the draft to be submitted for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That makes sense. I think I have submitted it successfully this time HCornish (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it worked, thanks to David's help - just pinging Whatamidoing (WMF) to re-highlight the fact that so many help pages, tutorials and graphics still need changing and that this is proving confusing to new editors. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peer reviewed and scholarly history sources?
According to WP:SOURCES, "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." Right now I am working on an American city article that will have a substantial History section that will be WP:SPLIT off. What databases/places have these "academic/peer reviewed" history sources? --Buffaboytalk 13:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Buffaboy. That passage may be slightly misleading in the way it's worded. For example, in medicine articles specifically, our guideline on medical sourcing differentiates not so much between peer reviewed and non-academic sources, but between primary front-line studies and things like meta-analyses and textbooks.
In my experience with history topics, books are often some of the best and most comprehensive sources available. It's usually good to do a quick check on the publisher and author to make sure they're reputable, and to keep in mind that more contemporary works are to be preferred over older ones. But having said that, it's perfectly possible to promote a page to Featured Article status without using a single peer reviewed academic source. I should, know; I've done it. GMGtalk 15:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that many of those books will have been subject to peer review in some form or another though, GreenMeansGo. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I guess that depends on how strictly you're using the term, but yes, if they're from a reputable publisher, there should be some level of editorial oversight. Although in the context of WP:SOURCES, books seem to be grouped under "other reliable sources". Personally, probably the most academic thing I've been want to use on history topics is the occasional thesis. But I would say as a rule to prefer reputable books published in the last few decades if possible, and don't stress terribly much about how many peer reviewed journal articles you may have at hand. Nothing beats a good old library card. GMGtalk 17:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GreenMeansGo Thanks, and with books I guess it's just a matter of determining how close the author is to the subject as well. In the FA review of Arlington, Washington, the reviewers were concerned that authors of slightly older books were too close to that city as citizens, they wanted outsider/historian sources instead. Buffaboytalk 13:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Buffaboy. I got some fairly similar feedback at this FA review regarding period newspaper articles as references (I've since had a name change, FYI in case that's confusing). Certainly the closer a source is to the subject (both in relation and in time), the closer it gets to being a WP:PRIMARY source. The thing is, you can use primary sources in articles, you just... use them exceptionally carefully. So it might be fine to use them for dates, places, people... in other words, fairly uncontroversial things that are unlikely to change across time. But you wouldn't want to use them for major or potentially controversial claims, or things that are not likely to be temporarily true.
Beyond that, if they are used, it's often important to qualify the statements, rather than saying things in Wikipedia's "voice". So for example in that same article, I cite newspapers of the day (literally the day) for the number of goods that sat idle in the harbor because of the civil unrest, but I don't say it as fact. Rather, I say it as "what the newspapers said", so that readers have an idea of where the information is coming from. In cases like that, primary sources may be all that is available, since modern day books are unlikely to be concerned with how many head of cattle were sitting idle on a ship, even though that information may be useful to illustrate the economic problems caused.
Especially with history topics though, if at all possible it's beneficial to back up claims with two or sometimes more sources, especially if a significant period of time has elapsed, and you will often find that these sources can vary, sometimes wildly in the story they tell. In cases like that, the best thing we can do is say something like "Sally (1944) said X, while Tom (2001) said Y".
Hopefully this was somewhat helpful and not just a waste of time. Feel free to ask further if you'd like, or to stop by my talk page. GMGtalk 13:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was an interesting explanation. I'll see how that relates to the Buffalo article soon enough. Buffaboytalk 14:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Buffaboy. Individual publishers have their own websites that feature content from the journals they publish. Some of the major ones include Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Taylor & Francis, Wiley, Elsevier and Springer. There are also some databases that include content from a range of publishers (sometimes after a lag of several years from publication), such as JSTOR. Some of these sites also include electronic versions of academic books. Beyond that, Google Scholar is a helpful resource for finding sources from a variety of academic publishers (although it also includes less reliable sources). One of the problems you are likely to run into is that accessing these sources often requires an individual or institutional (i.e. university library) subscription. Presuming that you don't have one of those, one way round that might be to investigate the Wikipedia Library. I hope that helps - do ask here if you have further questions. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to see Elsevier in the above list. They are responsible for an entire bogus journal. Maproom (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but they're a major publisher nonetheless. Obviously, individual sources should be judged on their merits. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I need help with references...
So I knew how to do it a little bit ago, then it fell away. I know how to make the little number in front of the words, and the reference at the bottom of a page, but how do you make them connected, in the way that if you click the number it brings you down to the reference at the bottom, and if you click the arrow on that, it brings you up to the little number?
Hello, DrChicken24. You don't have to make the number or the reference at the bottom of the page. You simply put the whole text of the citation between <ref> and </ref> at the point where it is used and the software does all the rest. I prefer to use the citation templates (such as {{cite web}}) for the citation itself, but that is not mandatory. Please read referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the OP already knew how to do that, according to this edit, so perhaps we need a clearer explanation of the question. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Updating a picture of Sean McVay on his page. Can someone help me compete this task? I truly would appreciate it.
Hello,
Before I begin, I want to apologize if this is not where this question belongs but I just figured it will be okay since the Teahouse is a place where rookies come to learn.
I just have a request and I hope someone can help me with this. or lead me to the right area where I can re-ask this question.
Okay....
The Los Angeles Rams' head football coach Sean McVay is having a stellar rookie year. As someone who respects McVay for turning a struggling franchise around in just one season, I would like someone to upload a recent Rams picture of him on his Wikipedia page.
The current picture on there is when he was the offensive coordinator for the Washington Redskins in 2014. I believe that the picture needs to be updated as he is the current head coach of the Rams and is doing an excellent job securing the teams first winning season in over 13 years.
I am not verified on Wikipedia to do that and don't know the whole copyright rules. I would just like an updated picture of him in a Rams uniform. Is that possible? I truly would appreciate that. Any questions, feel free to let me know.
Nate7bodnar, the problem (and the reason so many photographs on Wikipedia are of poor quality) is that material published on Wikipedia needs to be re-usable for any purpose—including commercial use—and many professional photographers don't want to release their work under these terms. (Not only does it mean the photographer won't get royalties for future use of the picture—and royalties is what they rely on to eat—but it also means the photograph could in future be used on SeanMcVaySucks.com or whatever, and the photographer wouldn't be able to object.) Unless you can persuade the owner of the copyright on a current photo to release it—or take a photograph yourself at a book-signing or something similar—we're very limited in what we can do in these cases. I know it's not what you want to hear, but because material on Wikipedia is reproduced so widely elsewhere, we need to be very careful about respecting other peoples' copyrights. (Photos published by the Federal—but not state—government are automatically available for re-use, so if he ever gets photographed at a White House banquet, military function etc, the official photos will be usable and you can crop them to just show his face.) ‑ Iridescent 18:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do I help with translations in Tamil and Hindi?
Hi,
I've been trying to figure out how and where I can help contribute content in other languages such as Hindi and Tamil on Wikipedia. But I only find myself chasing links. Can someone here help me with this?
Bhairavi25, Tamil Wikipedia and Hindi Wikipedia each have their own language versions of the site (as do the other Indian languages). The full list of every language which has its own version of Wikipedia is here. ‑ Iridescent 18:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if the page I have built has been targeted. I'm unsure what to do to counteract this, the page that I'm speaking of is Accelo. It was deleted once again even after making serious changes. I'm unsure how to contest this at this point, frustratingly this was deleted by the hand of only a few people claiming that the article was cited using biased and non-independent sources (which is completely false). Additionally claiming that the depth of coverage was unsuitable which is of course also false. Previously I had this same article removed due to it sounding overly promotional, after cutting the fat completely and only maintaining unbiased sources and strictly necessary information the page is taken down once again. I would appreciate feedback on how I can do better in the next version of this page or any other page I write in the future.
The deletion page for Accelo
Hi Indycould, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am unable to read the deleted content, but several different editors have considered that your topic, as submitted, does not merit an entry in an encyclopaedia. If Wikipedia were a trade directory, then it would welcome such information, but the policy here, as befits an encyclopaedia, is to accept articles only when the topic has been written about extensively by independent WP:Reliable sources. If you can point to some such sources, then perhaps your article might be reconsidered, but you need to be aware that most editors here will be inclined to delete content that looks like advertising. Dbfirs 23:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Indycould. I'm sorry you're having a difficult time here; but looking at your contributions history, it does rather look as if you're here for the purpose of promoting Accelo, rather than helping us to build an encyclopaedia. My suggestion would be that you read Your first article and WP:GNG carefully, and then spend some time looking for references where people who have no connection whatever with Accelo have chosen to write at length about it, and been published in reliable places unconnected with Accelo. Several of the people who commented at the deletion discussion were of the opinion that such sources do not currently exist, so you have your work cut out.
If those people are right, and you can't find such sources, then my advice would be to give up. If you are interested in improving Wikipedia, then find something else to work on; but if you're only interested in promoting Accelo, then I suggest that you are never going to have a rewarding experience here.
If you can find such sources, then you can try creating a draft. If you yourself are connected with Accelo, you should declare your conflict of interest; if you are employed or in any way compensated by the company for doing this, then you must declare this fact, or you are in contravention of Wikipedia's terms of service: see WP:PAID. Then, you should forget every single thing you have ever known about Accelo and write your draft based solely on what those independent commentators have said. --ColinFine (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much targeted as not meeting minimum standards to be included. The review process was extended to allow for others to see what the situation was, and the conclusion was to delete. Part of the problem may be your not understanding what Wikipedia defines as independent sources. The COI and PAID issues mentioned above are EXTREMELY important to Wikipedia. If you have any connection to the topic of an article that should be stated either on your own Talk or the Talk of the article, preferably both. Especially if you are paid or otherwise being compensated by the company. David notMD (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 73.74.141.157, A lad insane has poured you a cup of tea! Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Happy editing! -A lad insanetalk 01:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categorizing stubs tool
Is there a tool that helps you determine what type of stub an article is, or something of the sort; instead of spending minutes searching through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types page? Thanks. NikolaiHo☎️ 02:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Nikolaiho and welcome to the Teahouse! If you are looking for a tool to make it easier to add categories/search for them by keyword(s), I would suggest giving HotCat a try. If that is not what you mean/you have tried HotCat and it isn't what you meant, please do let me know. Hope this helps somewhat. --All the best & happy editing, TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheSandDoctor, sorry I was being unclear. I didn't mean adding categories, I meant adding stub tags to the article. Thanks! NikolaiHo☎️ 04:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WikEd blocks the keyboard shortcuts on Google Chrome and Firefox. Is there a work around? thank you very much in advance! Imaginelenin (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I need my protected Page unprotected as I have various references and genuine links
My page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonu_ke_titu_ki_sweety , was getting rejected again and again, I talked to one of the administrator and they briefly elaborated me that my film have to be released in order to get my wikipedia page alive, so Now as my film is recently released can I get my page to be unprotected so that I can resubmit it to the community and get the page live, Please Unportect it, I have some genuine links to get it unprotected.
--Anmol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmol.gan93 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anmol.gan93, and welcome to the Teahouse. While I don´t think being released is an absolute requirement, it certainly increases the chance that there will independent WP:Reliable sources to base a WP-article on, like reviews in newspapers. Just existing is not enough. There must be independent sources that writes about this film in some detail.
Two things: According to these sources the film will be released in February: [2][3]. And if this is your film, you are strongly discouraged to write an article about it per WP:Conflict of interest: "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Anmol.gan93. Please understand that Sonu ke titu ki sweety (which has now been deleted) was not "your arrticle" - nobody owns a Wikipedia article, and especially not anybody connected with the subject. If Wikipedia ever has an article on this film, it should be based nearly 100% on what people who have no connection with the film have chosen to publish about it: Wikipedia has little interest in what the producer, director etc have said about the film, and no interest whatever in what they want to have said about the film. In addition to the links Gråbergs Gråa Sång and I have alredy given, please read about promotion, conflict of interest, and notability. --ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My article was rejected. I need help rebuilding a strong one with your expert advice
Hello,
This is regarding my 'Draft: Bhavya Sachdeva' which when requested to move to article was rejected and the stated reason was
"-This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."
This is to certify that, I, Bhavya Sachdeva attempted to create my own Wikipedia page as an Indian Television, Actor owing to the fact, the audiences have started looking me up on google(thus in turn wikipedia) and are unable to find appropriate or factually correct information about me.
All the information provided in there is factually correct and I, Bhavya Sachdeva, have personally edited it. I am currently working for a televsion series,'Woh Apna Sa' on the channel 'ZeeTv' which is broadcasted on Indian cables connections and overseas as well.
I am well aware that this is my first attempt and I might not have the knowledge to draft an article which comply with the standards of Wikipdeia, I, therefore request you to assist me in this task.Bhavyasachdeva08 (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bhavyasachdeva08, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that you are making the same mistake as many people do, in assuming that Wikipedia has anything whatever to do with promotion. If Wikipedia ever has an article about you, it should be based almost 100% on what people who have no connection whatever with you have chosen to publish about you. Wikipedia has little interest in what any subject says about themselves, and absolutely no interest in how they wish to be portrayed. People are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves, because it is likely to be difficult for them to write in a sufficiently neutral manner. Please read WP:NACTOR, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do I add the template for an award nomination
I'd like to add a recent nomination for Freddie Highmore's page. There's already a section for Awards and Nominations but I'm not sure how to work with the template. This is his first nomination.
It looks like this.
Awards and nominations[edit | edit source]
Main article: List of awards and nominations received by Freddie Highmore
When I click on the edit a main template comes up but it's confusing as to how it works. I see other pages that have a table with the date, etc.
Thanks for your help with this.
Jean
Mjr524 (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I went into edit mode first. Didn't realize I should click on the link first. Just curious. Why isn't the awards/nominations table featured on the page Freddie Highmore. Just curious about why they are listed as a separate widipedia entry. I've seen other pages where the actor's awards/ nominations are on the same page as his bio etc. Just curious about the reasoning behind this.
Thanks.
Jean
Mjr524 (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If one section of an article becomes so large that it might be considered unbalanced compared with the rest of the article, it might be decided to split that section off into a separate article. It is often a subjective judgement, and if in doubt the proposal for a split should be discussed on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the awards page for Freddie HIghmore is done differently than others. Instead of one table, there are separate tables for each "award". which makes it really long. They have put them under "Major Associations" and included a lot of lesser know awards. But I checked out Jim Parson's page and he has 41 awards and while, the table is long, there are Freddie Highmore only has 25. The difference is that instead of listing them by year, they are listed by the "association".
For me it makes more sense to put them on his page. I may work up my courage and bring it up on the talk page.
Thanks again.
Jean
Mjr524 (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So, there was an old version of "Freddie Highmore" with the awards listed and then a new version where the awards were separated. Why were they separated? This is rather confusing. It seems to make much more sense to have the old version. In my humble opinion.
@Mjr524: Click the "View history" tab to see the page history. It was done in [4] with no edit summary or discussion. You could contact the editor. See Help:Talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How to change?
Hi,I'm Omega68537. How to change the color of words?
Another question-- AFC reviewers,there are more than 2700 AFC submissions that are pending review now. The backlig level is now "Extremely backloged". What will you do to reduce the backlog?
~Omega68537(talk)Omega68537 13:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When users ask how to change the color of words, they sometimes mean how to make blue text with a link. See Help:Link#Wikilinks for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To sort of answer your second question, Omega68537: who are you asking? Wikipedia doesn't have an administration department to assign work or take on jobs: it is an assemblage of volunteers, who work on what they choose. If you have a suggestion for reducing the backlog, I'm sure the guys at the Village pump would be keen to hear it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How to handle contradictory sources?
First timer here, so please forgive my ignorance. I'm researching the poet William Somervile for non-Wikipedia related reasons, and I noticed a discrepancy. His death date is given on Wikipedia and by various 19th century sources as July 19, but his tombstone (which I have seen in person) and some other sources (including Britannica) give July 17. I'm assuming the tombstone date is the accurate one, but I'm not comfortable just changing it in the article without some kind of explanation. When something like this comes up, is it necessary to explain in the article about the differing sources? Or can the edit just be made? (And how should I cite it? The most compelling source is the tombstone, but I've no idea how you would reference that.) Literarylizbeth (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Literarylizbeth and welcome to the Teahouse. Normally, Wikipedia discourages original research, but the date in our article is not referenced, so I would just go ahead and change it, citing the Britannica reference. If anyone disagrees, then a comparison of sources can be discussed on the talk page. Dbfirs 14:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a page from a blue link because the link gets redirected
I want to create a page that does not exist, but the topic is a blue link on the related site, not red. (It gets redirected to the home site.) Hints? The page would be about the Geological Society of America Bulletin. Thanks. Keagiles (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Keagiles. When you get redirected, there should be a little link in the upper left that says "redirected from TITLE". If you click on that you will be taken to the redirect itself, and you can edit it to replace the redirect with an article. GMGtalk 18:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This link will take you directly to the redirect. ~ GB fan 18:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I messed that up; someone already fixed the redirect. So I build the page first and then fix the redirect? But how do I build a page from scratch rather than by clicking on a red link in the article? I know you may not want to go into detail here, but I'm having trouble finding the answer on the help pages. This is my first time trying to build a page. Keagiles (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a new article is not easy, Keagiles, but I strongly recommend starting by reading your first article, and using the article wizard to create a draft. When you submit it for review, and a reviewer accepts it, they will handle the redirects.--ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do I suggest that a page be created? Keagiles (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RudolfRed Keagiles (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Finally (I think) — how do I get a draft approved? It's not in my sanbox but on a draft page created for me by ~ GB fan Keagiles (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Keagiles: Place {{subst:submit}} in the draft when you are ready to submit it for review. RudolfRed (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have been trying my hand at working on Comic book character articles and I have come across a problem that I need help with. Right Now I am working on the Fictional Character Biography and I noticed that some of the sources that I am going to cite have information that necessitates its reuse multiple times throughout the article. However, I don't know how to do that without it being continuously listed in the reflist (it should only be listed once). I looked at the "Cite comic book" template page and I doesn't work the way I want it to work since the citation is not numbered nor does it appear in the reflist like I want it to. I was just wondering how I should go about doing it the right way?Paleface Jack (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the review process of Wikipedia, but can assure you, the people reviewing our post about Verisurf Software have no idea about the subject and continue to deny its acceptance. The article subject matter is fact and documented by as many citations as are available. The industry in question, Metrology, is very specific and vertical in nature. I have asked for approval, realizing that anyone can add to the article and make recommendations for improvement. But if we can't get it posted in the first place it's a moot point. We are becoming very frustrated and would appreciate any help in getting the article accepted. Is there another classification we should be considering for the article? Thank you – Robert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:VerisurfRobertmooers (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robertmooers and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry you are having a frustrating time, but perhaps this is because you think Wikipedia is a directory of all good software. The key to the problem is in your words "as many citations as are available". To be notable in the Wikipedia sense, the software must have been written about extensively in independent WP:Reliable sources. If you have not found such sources, then no amount of improvement can get the article accepted. The people reviewing the post look specifically at the references you provide, and the content of the article should be a summary of what these independent articles say about the subject. Dbfirs 20:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertmooers: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first note that you use "we" above; if by "we" you mean that you work for the company that makes the software you write about, you need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID, the latter of which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are a paid editor.
Regarding your draft, it has been declined and is unlikely to be accepted because it is a promotional piece for your software. The press releases and similar sources that you offer are not acceptable for establishing notability as Wikipedia defines it on this page. What is required are reliable sources(read about at WP:RS) that give in depth coverage of your software. Those sources must be independent, as in not written by or associated with the company making this software in any way. Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes like telling the world about your software. We don't need to be experts in computer programming in order to evaluate a draft of an article.
To have any hope of being accepted, you need to set aside everything you know about this software and write the draft based only on what independent sources (which does not include press releases, republished company statements, or advertisements) state about it. If there are no independent sources, then it will not be possible for there to be an article about the software here at this time. Not every product or service merits an article on this global encyclopedia. I'm sorry. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One doesn't need to be an expert on metrology to see that Draft:Verisurf is written from the point of view of the vendor, and has no inline citations. Maproom (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback and advice; just to be clear, I am not an employee of the subject company, but do have considerable experience in manufacturing, metrology and quality reporting, which is the basis of my interest in submitting the article. The subject covered in the article is very relevant to manufacturers today, especially in aerospace where precision and quality assurance is paramount. In the most recent re-submission of the article I deleted specific product descriptions and focused on the concept of Model-Based Definition (MBD) as a strategy and how the development of the Verisurf solution brought concept within reach for manufacturers utilizing the PC platform. I contacted the most notable source on the subject of metrology and quality inspection, the Coordinate Metrology Society (CMSC) to see if they could supply additional scholarly articles, but due to poor data management over the years they very little historical information. This leaves the sources I have already provided in the article.
I did utilize company and industry published information for the basis of the article as I felt is provided the most clarity on the subject. If recommended, I can go back and rewrite the article, but this will not provide additional citations.
I would appreciate any further direction. If the advice is to rewrite I will definitely reference WP:your first article as a guide.
@Robertmooers: When you state "We are becoming very frustrated", who is "we" referring to? 331dot (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have been repeatedly submitting this topic since July, and it being rejected several times as not having appropriate citations, and it appears from your Contributions that except for a few edits, this is the only topic you have been editing. Perhaps time to end this Sisyphean task and turn to other topics. David notMD (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Templates for poorly written pages
Hello! I've stumbled across a questionable page (specifically Carl Esbeck), and I'm wondering which templates I should use to label the article for improvement. I cannot improve the page itself, so any help is appreciated. Thanks! Ｒａｎｇｅｄ Ｒａｎｇｅｒ (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've improved the article slightly. Maproom (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Ranged Ranger. This article is a mess, isn't it? I reckon it's bad enough that the main problems should be resolved by removing text rather than just flagging it. I suspect that the biography section, which is a long quote consisting of the majority of the content of the subject's university profile page, counts as a copyright violation. I will look to deal with this shortly. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gender issues in anime
In some recent anime, eg. Nanachi in Made in Abyss and Kino in Kino's Journey, there are differences of opinion on how to refer to characters who either display no gender, disguise their gender, or who use non-gender specific language to refer to themselves. Some contributors suggest using the plural pronouns (they, their, themselves, etc) in preference to he or she and other alternatives are: avoid using pronouns wherever possible, use he/she, him/her.
The Chicago-Kent College of Law proposes a number of work-arounds. Does anyone know of any precedents in Wikipedia where this issue has been resolved? Ozflashman (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozflashman. You might want to try asking this at WT:ANIME since the editor's in that WikiProject might be able better answer your question. This very question might have even be previously asked by someone else, so check WT:ANIME's talk page archives first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The biography of RICHARD E. CUNHA states he died in 2005, age 83. Why then does the article start with a template referring to a "biography of a LIVING PERSON"? This might be an error!104.152.249.30 (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the template. Thanks for notifying us. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something that I could put onto my profile to show that I can review pending changes, like the (this user is an administrator on Wikipedia (verify)) templates? The Verified Cactus100% 01:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, my bad, I found it (guess i should check twice before asking) The Verified Cactus100% 01:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cropping a free license image for use in wikipedia article
HI,
In the past, I have been able to link images with free licenses from WikiCommons for Wiki biographies. Currently, I want to crop one image of two women scientists that exists on Wikicommons, in order to separate, and and obtain close up portraits of each person for their wikipedia article: Marina Elliott and Becca Pexiotto.
I initially downloaded their image photo, edited and cropped it into two separate images, and tried to upload to Wikicommons. I ran into difficulties doing that. I am not sure the best way to get each cropped individual image into each woman's Wikipedia biography.
Hi MauraWen. I'm not sure exactly which image you're talking about, but in general freely licensed or public domain images uploaded to Commons can be cropped, etc. as needed. If you're having difficulties doing it yousrself, try asking for help at c:Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of cropping an image in Commons, you can display it cropped in an article. See the two images at Barbara Grace Tucker for an example. Maproom (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I want to create page on the topic Polygalatenoside
After editing in sandbox how to create the page?Monoonejoy (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Monoonejoy: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is already a box at the top of your sandbox with a "Submit your Draft for Review!" button on it; you can click it to submit your draft for another editor to review, however I would not do so yet, as the draft will need to be more extensive than one line. If you haven't already, you may want to read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
references issues
I'm sure this one is probably common but when it comes to notability issues, what if this person is a writer or author with a dense body of work? is he only accessible to wikipedia if he's expressly written about in NYT?? Pescobosa (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're only posing a hypothetical question, we can only give you a general answer. The "dense body of work" a writer has created is not, all by itself, something we can use to write an encyclopedia article about the writer. Someone else, independent of the writer, has to take note of that work and write some in-depth coverage before we would have something that Wikipedia would recognize as notability. It need not be the NYT, but it needs to be more than just local press. And Wikipedia is still very wary of accepting as reliable many types of newer media: blogs and other forms of online content that tend to be the product of individuals rather than organizations. Yes, this is a limitation, but no acceptable alternative has been found to insisting on reliable, independent source. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs) 09:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for someone to add the IPA context
Hello,
I am looking for someone to assist by adding an IPA translation for these 3 English Wikipedia articles Ivan Cankar, Boris Pahor and Janko Prunk, which all have an audio file of their name pronounciations. My other question is : Does the IPA context remain the same on all translated Wikipedias and does it get added to Wikimedia Metadata or does it have to be uniquelly IPA defined for each language Wikipedia ?
web.archive.org has been really wonky recently were I live, it fails to save pages often and claims it doesn't have several article in the archive despite the fact that I looked at them the previous day. It says "bad request" all the time. Is there any alternative I could use?★Trekker (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm abit worried aboutgiving out my email adress but it's better than nothing.★Trekker (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting a redirect page
This has come up before and it will again, so I want to know how to do it instead of someone doing it for me.
There is a redirect page from Abraham Lincoln Brigade to XV International Brigade. I want to rename XV International Brigade page making it the Abraham Lincoln Brigade page, but cannot do so because of the redirect page.
I don’t want to get into here a discussion of whether that is a wise rename or not. I'd like to know the process, if someone will kindly inform me. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
does anybody know the name of the american whose participation in fast and furious resultyed in an 80 page judgement on how badly they broke our constitution and led to sequestration?
does anybody know the name of the American that received an 80 page judgement from the F.I.S.C. on how badly they broke our constitution and led to sequestration?
68.113.38.132 (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think IP is talking about this ATF gunwalking scandal which is also know as Operation Fast and Furious. NZFC(talk) 19:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Questions like this are off topic here, IP. You may want to ask at the Reference desk. We answer questions on how to edit Wikipedia here. Thanks, and if you have any questions that are in the scope of what we can help with, please come back. John from Idegon (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Best way to explain technical term contained in a quote
What is the best way to offer a brief explanation of a technical term contained in a quote?
This question arose when I was editing Intersectionality, a B-class article about a rather dense academic topic (theory). One of the quotations contains the term "hegemonic structures", a phrase most readers probably have not seen before. We have two articles that provide insight into the term's meaning, Hegemony and Cultural hegemony.
I initially wikilinked "hegemonic structures" to hegemony, but then I wondered, "Should I link from within a quote?" The person quoted did not intend their term to be wikilinked. I therefore added an explanatory note at the end of the quote.
Section: Encouraging paralyses in attempting perfection. Sentence containing quote: They also say that intersectional philosophy encourages a focus on the issues inside the group instead of on society at large, and that intersectionality is "a call to complexity and to abandon over simplification... this has the parallel effect of emphasizing 'internal differences' over hegemonic structures."[67][a]
Is this the best way to accomplish my goal of helping readers understand an esoteric word or phrase? Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD(talk) 20:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recently noticed that in the opening line of the article for an actress, it said she was English. While technically correct, her nationality is actually British so I changed it. It was quickly changed back by someone else. I checked other articles for British people, and all of them I looked at say "English", "Welsh" or "Scottish" as opposed to British.
But someone from the United Kingdom is of British nationality. Our passports list our nationality as such, for example. But wikipedia seems to go with the constituent country as opposed to the nationality as a whole - why?
It would be like opening the page for an American and the opening sentence saying "This man is an actor from Florida". Or a "This lady is a Texan politician". But in both those cases, it lists the person's nationality first and then says more precisely where they are from later.
Why is it different for British nationals?
Stenun (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stenun, please see WP:UKNATIONALS as this has been discussed many times before. Please note we do not enforce uniformity because there is such disagreement about this discussion there isn't a hard and fast rule on which is right. If you feel it should be changed, please take it to the talk page of that article, don't keep trying to change it back as it can result in edit warring and nobodies wins. NZFC(talk) 21:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
editor keeps putting a map that is not in the author's book and attributing it to that author in an article ...
I did one section at "wp:Administrator intervention against vandalism" previously, with success; but I do not know that this situation fits there.
An editor keeps putting a map that is not in the author's book and attributing it to that author in an article. The editor sayshis map is on "page 26", but I found the 1996/7 book, and on page 26-27 is map 1.3 which is similar to File:Clash of Civilizations mapn2.png as I stated on the Talk page, while doing WP:BRD. His map is not in the book, and the author says near the top of page 47 that "the West" cannot be found on a map. Seems like wp:OR and maybe not NPOV, or more. Where do I go next to resolve this/these issue(s)? X1\ (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How to access a deleted page's history?
Is there a way to access the article history of a deleted article? The Verified Cactus100% 00:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article Physiological functional capacity is a dead-end except for one link. It needs more outgoing links. It also has only one incoming link. I tried to fix it, but couldnt do much. Somebody familiar with the human anatomy, and/diseases would be familiar with the concepts/phrases. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 04:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Usernamekiran, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've added some outgoing links and removed the tag. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, there remain difficult questions about what precise probability any given evidence justifies putting on the general statement.
I tried hard to comprehend what it's saying, and here's what I got:
for any given evidence, you put it on the general statement, and it will justify a certain probability; and "what precise probability we can get" still remain as difficult questions.
I'm finishing up translation of this into Chinese (zh.wiki), so I really want to hope what is this tongue-twister supposed to mean. Thank you everyone! -- SzMithrandir ❈ Ered Luin ❈ 07:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's a problematic sentence; the sentence I would put in its place is more like No satisfactory approach has been proposed for converting the evidence from repeated observations into a probability that the general statement is true. That is, the problem of induction is still an unsolved problem.
I'll confess that I don't understand everything in the SEP article being referenced in this section, either, so I may be getting it wrong myself. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs) 08:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that bold paraphrase! Your paraphrase does clarify this sentence for me quite a bit; now I suddenly realize what the word "general statement" is referring to; rings a bell of a long article by Nancy Cartwright (philosopher) about analogy between physical laws and fable morals, from a first-year seminar course. It basically means, laws and correlations (so-called "general statements") in science are often evidence-based, so it is fundamentally agnostic how much probability these general statements can be causally "true" (realism), and that is quite a headache for people. Anyways, I'll go ahead and clean that up! -- SzMithrandir ❈ Ered Luin ❈ 16:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OnyinyechiNwankwo234, Draft:Uche Modum was rejected because, as it says in the rejection notice at the top, "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." Since it was rejected, you have done nothing to improve the referencing, and have resubmitted it for approval; that is a waste of everyone's time, as it will be rejected again. No wonder the Articles for Creation process is severely backlogged. Maproom (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My article was declined by BRADV, because he did not deem it relevant.
I am writing about a surgeon who is specialised in transgender operations and actually able to create penises that are good looking and sensitive and he can make the whole transformation woman-man in 9 hours. I think this is a relevant skill that should be mentionned on wikipedia. The article is the translation I made of the same article in German. How can it be improved to fit the English speaking wikipedia demands?
Drakegreune (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the feedback box at the top of your draft, and in the message on your user talk page, there is an explanation as to why the draft was declined. The words in blue in the explanation are wikilinks to places where you can find more detail. One obvious problem is that all your references are written by the subject, whereas what is required is coverage in published reliable sourcesindependent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Creating articles, categories, etc.
I notice that i am unable to create an article. I wonder why. 185.43.229.5 (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have to create an account and log in to create an article. The account also needs to be at least four days old and you need to have made at least ten edits to other pages. – Joe (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe:, is this a new or revised policy? Because, if i am not mistaken, i remember that i was able to create articles as an anonymous. 185.43.229.5 (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I want to update of my company picsoam on wikipedia How?
how to update my articles on wikipedia? 42.107.21.143 (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi anonymous IP address, and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't have any articles on Wikipedia under that IP address, and your company doesn't own any wikipedia article, though there might be an article about your company. Since you appear to have a WP:Conflict of interest, it would be best to tell us which article needs updating, and what update is required, then an independent editor can make the edit for you. Dbfirs 11:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
how to create an article
Hi I'm new here and I'm really eager to create my first article! But I need some help. Can you help pretty please😚.
Thanks a bunch 💋 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiqueenie (talk • contribs) 12:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiqueenie: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your eagerness is appreciated. I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is actually one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. New users that dive right in to article creation often edit up disappointed and with hurt feelings after something they spent a lot of time on is mercilessly edited and even deleted by others, because of a lack of knowledge by the creator of what is being looked for in articles in terms of style and sourcing. It is possible for a new user diving right in to article creation to be successful, but it is uncommon. I don't say this to discourage you, just to give you an honest assessment of what sometimes happens.
New users who are most successful at creating articles started small by making minor edits to existing articles and working their way up to more substantive edits, which helped them learn how to use Wikipedia and learn what is being looked for in articles. I would suggest that you take this road; find existing articles in areas that interest you and see if they need to be fixed or improved in some way.
Whenever you feel you are ready, you may wish to read Your First Article which describes what is being looked for in new articles; then, I would suggest visiting Articles for Creation where you can create and submit a draft for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This will let you get feedback before the article is created instead of after. You may also wish to use The Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial of sorts for using Wikipedia. Good luck, and if you have any other questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for advice about writing a page about a recurring software feature
Greetings, I was advised to look at this essay on software notability however it appears to be oriented towards programs not features of programs; features are only mentioned in the footnotes.
I have added a prototype of my work-in-progress on this page and I would appreciate feedback.
Hello, Phedrence, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you can't find a specialized notability guideline for the topic you had in mind, see the general notability guideline which is applicable to all topics. By the way, article's shouldn't use "you". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this looks a lot like an assemblage of facts from primary resources in a way that makes it original research rather than a report on facts that are covered by independent sources. I predict an uphill struggle to get an article like this accepted on Wikipedia. There are other venues where this kind of report would be welcome (unfortunately not as many as there used to be in the heyday of personal computing magazines). If several different people wrote about this topic and published their coverage in suitable places, we might then have some basis for a WP article. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs) 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Phedrence. At the moment, my view is that the article violates guidelines such as WP:OR and WP:NOTGUIDE. Unless you can find discussion of status keys as a generic topic in reliable sources and base the article on what these say, cutting back on the amount of technical detail of how individual implementations work, you're not going to get the article accepted. Sorry if that's not what you want to hear, but it is very difficult to produce acceptable articles for Wikipedia. Neiltonks (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are sources to almost never, or never at all cite on articles about video games and video game conventions?
I am searching for sources to cite on an article about a video game convetion in the USA, and am wondering what sources about video game conventions should almost never be cited, or should absoultely never be cited. On Nintendo articles, you should almost never cite Nintendo Life, and I was wondering if there is any sources like that, that should almost never, or never at all be cited on pages relating to video game convetions.
I was also wondering if the specific sources Comicbook.com (a.k.a WWG a division of Comicbook) and Playstation LifeStyle are good sources and if there information can be trusted most of the time, or if either of them should be avoided most of the time, or all of the time as sources for information.
Greshthegreat (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll ask there instead. Thanks. Greshthegreat (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)See Identifying reliable sources and simply apply that to video games sources. It's difficult to answer this question because there are many more sources which are not reliable than sources which are. The basic rule of thumb is; if it's a large, professional publication with a reputation for fact checking (an example of this would be IGN), it's probably good to cite them. If it's a blog, self-published book, corporate publication or anything of the sort, it's probably not okay.
With all of that being said, the most important question here is what claims are you citing to that source? If you're claiming that RipoffThePlayer Studios, which is known for frivolous lawsuits against people who give negative reviews of their games and for making wildly inaccurate claims in public publishes a flyer claiming their new game will follow an always-connected model because NPC AI is handled by a Watson-esque remote server, you could cite that flyer for claims that they said that, but you couldn't cite it for claims that their new game will actually have a Watson-esque supercomputer handling NPC AI. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 17:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll check the article Identifiying reliable sourcs from now on, and only ask questions about sources if that doesn't help me, or if some editors have said things that go agains what that pages information says. Thanks for the information about the sources, and I'll try to remember some of that information in the future.
I didn't feel like that was a snippy responce, I just don't ask questions on Wikipedia very much, so I assumed that would truly be a better place to ask, full of users who knew alout about video games. I'll always ask questions where I feel they should be asked, and ask someone else, if no one is of any help Also, don't worry, I am not afraid of asking questions, I just don't ask questions on Wikipedia very often.
What Is All About This Page I'm A First User — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwaetsile (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nwaetsile. This is the teahouse, a forum for new editors to ask questions and seek feedback. If you want to start getting better acquainted with the way Wikipedia works as a whole, a good place to start would be our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. GMGtalk 20:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How to remove an orphan tag?
Hello, I recently created an article and it has been flagged with an orphan tag. I have now linked the article from other pages, and it is no longer an orphan, but the tag still remains. How can I remove it? Airgum (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Airgum. It looks like you've pretty well figured it out. Sorry we were a little late in responding, but as you might already know, the orphan tag just adds the article to a category of article that need cleanup to better integrate them into the encyclopedia. Once there are links added there's no need for the template and you can just take it off with no problems. Thanks for helping up build an encyclopedia! GMGtalk 20:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Airgum. If you have translated this article from the German Wikipedia, as it looks like you have, then you need to credit the source article by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate (it's too late to make a statement in your first edit summary, but you can make an edit to the article and note in your summary that the first revision was translated from the German Wikipedia). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please help me find a mentor?
I have checked the list of available mentors and most of them are busy or are not qualified to help me. I would like to learn about counter-vandalism. Please could someone help me. Pablothepenguin (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving bot
Hello all. How can we add or request archive bot for talk pages? 185.43.229.129 (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
