Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.40.54.143 (talk) at 22:06, 14 September 2013 (→‎Frederick Bee article: easily notable). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

AlanM1, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.
Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host
New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.


Pictures on Forums

I found a picture posted on a forum and the member who posted it is no longer active on the forum, can I upload the picture to Wikipedia as fair use or public domain or do I need permission? (Monkelese (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Monkelese, and thanks for asking. You certainly may NOT upload it as public domain, unless you have very definite information that the copyright holder has put it in the public domain, or unless there is some reason that you can be certain that it is old enough. As for fair use, Wikipedia applies a more restrictive set of rules called the WP:Non-free content criteria: only if you can satisfy every one of the ten conditions, including where the picture is to be used, may you upload it without permission. --ColinFine (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection

When an film article is moved to match its title with how it appears in the film posters or in the film titles, how to prevent someone else from moving it again? The actual title may not be how words are used in convention. So someone may find it wrong and try to move it. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sriram Vikram: Welcome to the Teahouse. Move protection is usually not granted unless 1) There is already a move war (i.e. an edit war with page moves) or 2) It is being subject to pagemove vandalism (renaming pages to ridiculous titles). I would personally suggest being bold and just moving the page and worrying about it being reverted when it gets reverted. Happy editing, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 14:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to like make a disclaimer or something when someone tries to move a page so as to remind them why the article is titled the way it is though the spelling may not be correct? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, posting a note about it on the article's talk page may be helpful, or possibly a hatnote (a small note at the top of the article) using Template:Hat. I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man. I appreciate it. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a moment! Sriram, the policy on article titles say that it should be the most common name of the subject, in English, which is not necessarily its complete or accurate name. You say "the actual title may not be how words are used in convention" - which suggests to me that perhaps the precise title of the file is not the best title for the article in English Wikipedia. I guess you are talking about Káthirunda Kangal, which I see you moved from Kaathirundha Kangal. But the (only!) reliable source in the article spells it "Kaathirundha Kangal" (the other two sources, neither of which is an acceptable reference, have other spellings). There is thus NO source quoted which uses the spelling you have now made the title of the article. I'm sorry, but I do not think you should have moved it. You say that a primary source (the film itself) uses this title, but as the page says that I linked to above, where there are variations Wikipedia uses "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". So I think it ought to be moved back to Kaathirundha Kangal. Of course the fact that the film spells it differently can be noted in the article - for a fact like that, a primary source would be acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But since the page was moved from the most common name, and there are no other articles with a similar title, it is going to redirect to the new title. Does that hurt anyone? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the title as it was earlier was a literal translation from the original language. It is not uncommon in English to those symbols in English to show emphasis or stress on a letter. Doesn't wikipedia has a article called Tête à Tête? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not changing the spelling of words in their native language itself. Its the translation to English were the problem arises. Each one will have a different spelling. So the best option is to use them as it appears in the subject in question. Is the movie in question did not have titles in English, then we can go with the 'most common name' rule. But since had titles in English, I think its better to use them as it appears. Any suggestion is welcome. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About citing reliable sources.

Hello, Re my Articles for Creation/Contact Gallery, Norwich, 1986-1999. This article has been submitted and declined on three occasions this year for not providing enough reliable sources to prove it was a notable organisation. I have had some good advise from the Help Desk twice by Huon and on the last occasion by Ritchie333. Ritchie333 did an internet search thus "contact gallery", norwich and it listed 33 books and publications that mentions the gallery, some a few words, some a sentence or two; nothing substantial. Ritchie333 felt that citing this source of all the books etc. might 'tip the balance' and have it accepted. I will therefore give it another try but my question is: is it acceptable to just write - search internet for "contact gallery, norwich or is there a more technical way to cite this source. Also can you suggest any other avenues that I could try at this stage? Your advise would be very welcome as if I the article is declined a 4th time I will not try again. Thank you. Woodbutts (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Woodbutts. I salute you for your persistence! I would certainly not accept an internet search as any kind reference. I would also not agree with Ritchie333 that a large number of passing references add up to notability. The problem is that in theory every piece of information in an article (apart from common knowledge) should be supported by a reference; if references do not exist that discuss the subject at length, then there is no information you can validly put into the article, and hence there can be no article. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Way to delete a certain kind of article

Hello everyone! I just found this place. I've edited a bit but a long time ago though I sometimes do spelling corrections without going into my account. I have a question, if that's okay. If an article is a "redirect" but it was was an encyclopedia article for a really long time before it became a redirect (and now has been a redirect for a long time too), and you think it should be deleted, do you try to do that at the articles for deletion page or the redirects for deletion page? (those pages are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.) Lady in polka dot (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lady in polka dot. There must be a reason why the article that existed for a long time was deleted and turned into a redirect a long time ago. There may be an Articles for Deletion debate that would shed light on the reasons. We have a saying that "redirects are cheap" which is slightly misleading since everything is cheap or almost free on this volunteer created online encyclopedia that doesn't have to purchase boxcars full of paper or tankcars full of ink. What that slogan really means is that a redirect term doesn't have to meet notability standards like a full-fledged article topic. Instead, it just has to be a plausible search term that someone might enter, and that we have an article that is relevant to that search term. That's a relatively low bar. So, my question is, why spend time trying to delete redirects? Some people may get satisfaction from this activity, but I find many other more interesting things to do on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cullen Thank you for welcoming me. It's not something I do or would get idle satisfaction from doing. I think there's a good reason. The article was never deleted and it was never considered by articles for deletion. What happened is that someone one day came and modified it to become a redirect to another article that mentions her and it stayed that way. It is a character assassination write up made to mislead and smear her name. Anyone can still read it by going to its history, so I think it should not be available at all. I am only looking for which page it would be considered at if I wanted to ask that it be deleted. Lady in polka dot (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is truly "character assassination" involved, Lady in polka dot, then this is a serious policy matter requiring immediate protective action by experienced editors. Please provide full details here or at the Biographies of living people noticeboard as soon as possible. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the Wikipedia Foundation retains 10% of book price value do authors retain anything too?

I am very happy for the wikipedia Foundation to retain 10% of the book price for any book published but wondered, if there are multiple copies sold around the world how does the author get recompensed too? Geoff.112SU Stornoway (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of Wikipedia articles are all volunteers, who release their rights to their text when they edit Wikipedia. Thus, it is not expected that the authors get anything. The Wikimedia Foundation only gets the 10% retention because of the fact that the WMF brings so much business (relatively) to the book printer that they felt it good to donate back to the WMF. Think of it like a discount you get for buying things in bulk. But anyone who edits Wikipedia should not expect money for their work. ~Charmlet -talk- 21:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I am about to write a short book and thought that Wikibooks was an excellent channel to do that through. I would like to hive off another 10% to my pet veterans association and I also put a value to the time and effort I put in originally too. So maybe there is an opportunity for a commercial side of "books" whereby the WikiFoundation gets say 15% but that the author retains say 50% but that the book price goes up correspondingly?112SU Stornoway (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably not going to be done for one major reason - the WMF's mission is to support free content, in both cost and in ease of access and use. Thus, all content on Wikipedia, WikiBooks, and the other WMF projects is released under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license - meaning that anyone can reuse it for whatever reason, even selling it, and the author cannot expect any money in return (by default - if they want to pay you that's totally fine). So, if you're looking to make money off of your work, I suggest you not post it on any WMF project. Sorry for the confusion ~Charmlet -talk- 22:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks for your response - no confusion and I totally support the principle of free editorial work within the WP world for article writing but the time commitment of writing a book is something different. No matter, I'll seek alternative solutions. G. 112SU Stornoway (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if my memory doesn't fail me, the idea behind Wikibooks was that having more than one person working on a book would not only improve the content of the book, but make the process faster. However it does involve releasing the copyright, which is why, I assume, it doesn't get as much use as everyone would like. ~Charmlet -talk- 22:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

How to fix double redirects? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirects in the sense? What do you mean? Can you give a sample? --    L o g  X   18:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently moved a page that was already moved from another name. So when I search with the old name, it shows the redirect page instead of the article. Kaathiruntha Kangal -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry abt that. It just took some time for the page move to happen. So now its fixed!! -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! --    L o g  X   19:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sriram Vikram and welcome to The Teahouse. A bot does what you needed done.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was AvicBot. Here is where you can see what happened.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Vchimpanzee:It was already been solved. Thanks --    L o g  X   21:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i am not so fimiliar with wikipedia and i cant understand many things about it too so i tried the live chatroom but how to use the live help chatroom storyteller 14:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcustom41049999 (talk • contribs)

Hello Marcustom41019999, welcome to the Teahouse. To use the help chat, go to this link, enter a nickname and the captcha (the pictures of numbers), and click "connect". When you've done that, move your mouse to the bottom of your browser window, click there, and then you should be able to type your question. Hope this helps! Howicus (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea is to read the Primer, which is a great, unofficial introduction to editing Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omission of involvement in rape trial in article

Hi, I hope I'm in the right place...I am new to the editing community and only joined in order to (hopefully) make one addition to an article: amend it to reflect that the subject went to trial for rape. I have no idea how to write code. Is there a way to send a suggestion for an edit, via email or a "comments" page? The brackets and tildes and colons are making my head spin, but I suspect this is a great deterrent to erroneous edits...

I have citations. Thanks for any help. jsl1016Jsl1016 (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, jsl, and welcome to the tea house. There are various answers, depending how adventurous you do feel. If you use the "Edit (beta)" link, that will put you into the new Visual Editor, which is designed for people who do not want to have to learn about brackets and colons. Otherwise, the direct answer to your question is that every page has a "Talk" page for just that purpose. Pick the tab labelled either "Talk" or "Discussion". --ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Jsl1016. How to cover the fact that the subject went to trial for rape depends very much on the outcome of the trial.If the person was convicted, then that is worthy of mention in the article. If the person was acquitted, or the charges were dropped, then extreme caution is called for. A brief, qualified mention may be appropriate if the case received extensive coverage in reliable sources. If not, it isn't appropriate to mention. Please see our policy on biographies of living people and notability guidelines for perpetrators of crimes for more guidance. If you give us the name of the person, we can give you much more specific advice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Khidr again!!!

I forget to write that I put it again. But I don't know to write the title again: "Historical Background" and I don't know how can I put it on Content? 01:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)01:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarasyani (talk • contribs)

It seems that you figured this out by yourself. Great! —Anne Delong (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with an another editor about the article of Khidr!

I'm new here. Who can help me? I want to describe my problem.

My nickname is Tarasyani on WIKI. My excuse that I write you very bad English. Because my English is not very well.

I have a serious problem with an another editor who has a religious prejudice. It is about "Khidr".

I wrote many books about mythology, about the myth of Khidr too. Almost a month ago I begon to add new information for this article. But "Ogress" who is another editor, deleted suddenly all information. This is second time that he deleted it...

I understand that he is originally from Iran and he is Muslim Turkish. He want to write only religious (Islamic) or mythological datas about Khidr. Therefore he deleted all scholarly information. I added it again. But I don't want any discussion here. I give always references...

I'm new here and my English is not so good. Therefore I need your help.

Do you want help to me, please? Greatings, Tarasyani

01:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)01:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarasyani (talk • contribs)

Hi Tarasyani, welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing I would suggest you do is discuss your changes with Ogress on the article talk page. Each article has one, and it is where editors go to discuss changes to the article. You can find a link to it at the top of the page. Ogress gave her reasons for reverting your changes at the bottom of the talk page. I have some suggestions for you about article content. It is important to reference a reliable source when you add information to an article. If your sources are religious in intent, it is possible to use them to describe beliefs held by large groups of people. However, they may not be used to establish historical fact. Second, your addition to the article was very long. That makes it difficult for other editors to review. I recommend that you instead start with the small pieces that you think are easiest to defend. I hope that helps. DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DPRoberts534, Thank you for help! My data's are not religious, scholarly. Everyone can control it, because I give references enough. I will try to do what you wrote. Thanks again! I hope that I use correct way to send a message to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarasyani (talk • contribs) 07:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can my client get his information published

Hello,

I am working on my client's website and he is a soon to be published author and medical expert. He is wanting to have information about him published on Wikipedia, and I thought I would see if I can find out how he can make that happen.

Are there writers here that he can hire, or ask to write the article? I only know that he can not write anything himself, but that is the extent of what I know about being published on Wikipedia.


Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you,

Wally 107.220.215.77 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 107, and welcome to the Teahouse! Generally, you cannot "hire" editors to write articles for an outside client. Please read WP:COI and WP:OWN. Even if such an article is created, it will most likely be tagged for speedy deletion as an advertisement. if your client wants to be more known, I suggest he start his own website. If he becomes known enough he can get an article of his own, but not an advertisement. For information on the criteria for getting an article, read WP:NOTABILITY. Konveyor Belt yell at me 19:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A slight correction to what Konveyor Belt says: he will never "get an article of his own". Nobody in the world has a Wikipedia article. If he becomes known enough, Wikipedia may have an article about him. This might be seen as a pedantic detail, but I think it is an important distinction to help people understand what Wikipedia is and what it is not. --ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

34 West 71st Street New York Map

Can someone fix this infobox User:Titodutta/Vedanta Society of New York and suggest which map is applicable for "34 West 71st Street New York". Go here and search with "Vedanta Society of New York" to get lat long. --Tito☸Dutta 16:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at it. Do the changes I've made meet with your approval? (By the way, it seems to me that {{Infobox organization}} might be more appropriate than {{Infobox building}}, since it's presumably not the building itself that's notable; but that one won't let you use a automated location map, I think.) Deor (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Bee article

Frederick Bee's life was summarized in newspaper articles written about his funeral. www.frederickbee.com has dozens of webpages with references to Frederick Bee. More people would know about Frederick Bee by reading the Wikipedia article. How do I show that Frederick Bee is notable when I am using Wikipedia to make Frederick Bee notable? MC Potbelly (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcpotbelly: You don't. If he isn't notably without Wikipedia's help, he cannot have an article. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like on Frederick Bee you and User:Theroadislong are engaged in a good practice of improving the article and establishing notability. I also see that you have a productive dialogue running with Theroadislong at User_talk:Theroadislong#Frederick_Bee_notability_2. The article is not going to be deleted in a hurry, so don't worry about that. He's a decent editor, and should be able to give you good advice on the article. --LukeSurl t c 15:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Mcpotbelly: Hey, thanks for your question. I disagree with Jakob's response above, though your last sentence suggests you are planning on using articles on Wikipedia as citations for the article on Frederick Bee, which is generally not appropriate because Wikipedia is not a reliable source (as anyone can change it at anytime). The current article looks reasonably well-source, but if there is additional or more specific information that can be added to the article using the articles you've mentioned, you are invited to improve it. If you're looking to get the article itself to be more visible, you might consider trying to get the article to good article status or even featured article status, which require peer review. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Frederick Bee was notable. I have done some copy editing. It is an interesting story. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Cullen. Frederick Bee easily passes our WP:General notability guideline requirements. 64.40.54.143 (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some Wizard to Create a New Article

This is a dumb question-- yeah, I know, please don't blame me--. I was looking for some tutorial page (not Wikipedia:Tutorial ), that I hit on some time ago. It guided you throught all the steps you need to know first, before you are going to create an article. Miss Bono [zootalk] 13:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Wikipedia:Article Wizard Miss Bono [zootalk] 13:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the IIRSM Institute_of_Risk_and_Safety_Management page been deleted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Institute_of_Risk_and_Safety_Management&action=edit&redlink=1

With no copyright issues and written by it's members this page is unjustly being removed without just or fair reason!

This is what ruins Wikipedia - hidden agendas.Safetyprofessional (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Safetyprofessional and welcome to the Teahouse. If text of an article replicates another webpage, this is considered a copyright infringement. Because of the deletion I am unable to see what the text was, but I assume it was a duplication of something published by the institute. There are three problems with this:
  • We can rarely be sure that someone truly represents an organization, and has the authority to release text under our very permissive copyright license. By necessity, Wikipedia is very cautious when it comes to legal & copyright issues.
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Even if Wikipedia could legally publish it, text originally written for a company website is written for a different purpose, and would rarely be appropriate in tone and style for an encyclopedia.
  • Wikipedia strongly discourages writing articles about entities one is strongly connected to for several reasons. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

--LukeSurl t c 14:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Safetyprofessional. There is no hidden agenda. The deletion log says "([WP:CSD#G12]: Unambiguous copyright infringement)". As LukeSurl says, if material has been published somewhere else it may not be used in a Wikipedia article unless the copyright holder explicitly licenses it under one of the licences acceptable to Wikipedia - the procedure to follow is described at WP:Donating copyright materials. But Luke's second and third points are also relevant: if the text comes from the institute's page then it is almost certainly inappropriate in tone for Wikipedia, and if the page is written by the institute's members, they have a huge conflict of interest, and will find it extremely difficult to write in a sufficiently neutral way. Your best course, is to locate the multiple substantial references in reliable sources, independent of the institute which are an absolute requirement to establish that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability; and once you have them, to request somebody else write an article as WP:Requested articles. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a Certified Paralegal and Registered Safety Practioner I am aware of the'copyright' and 'conflict of interest' excuses that pervert those with nothing better to do. Is my response a copyright? No I wrote it, deletion likely though because it must have a source. Hang on, if it has a source it should be deleted.

IIRSM is genuine and so are it's members unlike the twisted people deleting hard work Wiki, this ends the first lesson on catch 22 and it's unsuspecting unpaid volenteers.Safetyprofessional (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it safe to assume that the IOSH page will now be deleted then too? Or is this just an attack on those attempting to add well documented and unbiased facts? I'm all but done with Wiki, does nobody actually help to build anything?Safetyprofessional (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record last months attack on the IIRSM was by a mirror website and another 'helpful' idiot reporting the Institute as the ones copying. One big joke. Safetyprofessional (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calling people names and accusing strangers you have never met of hidden agendas and nefarious motives is unlikely to get you the help you need in writing an well-referenced encyclopedia article of proper tone and style. You may want to alter your approach when seeking help in the future if your goal is understanding what Wikipedia is, how it works, and what a good encyclopedia article looks like. If you have other purposes than those, you may want to reconsider your work here altogether. --Jayron32 20:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better do your job properly and detete all the links too:

NEBOSH

(IOSH), the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management (IIRSM)and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA). ...

13 KB (1,789 words) - 12:30, 11 July 2013


Certified safety professional

Continuing professional development (CPD) is also a strong requirement of both memberships. IIRSM also offer RSP Recognised Safety ...

7 KB (944 words) - 13:46, 14 May 2013


OSHCR

International Institute of Risk and Safety Management (IIRSM. Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH. National Examination Board ...

5 KB (669 words) - 02:05, 9 March 2013


British Safety Council

External links : iirsm. org/ IIRSM. Category:Safety organizations Category:Charities based in London Category:1957 establishments in the United ...

2 KB (322 words) - 15:27, 30 August 2013


RSP

RSP Recognised Safety Professional honorary post nominal letters given by IIRSM (International Institute of Risk & Safety Management) to ...

2 KB (295 words) - 02:54, 19 July 2013


Institution of Occupational Safety and Health

See also : IIRSM References : External links : http://www. iosh. co. uk Official IOSH website. http://www. iom-world. org/news/news_archive/osh. ...

5 KB (664 words) - 14:42, 30 August 2013 Safetyprofessional (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron your response to the recent activity on here speaks volumes.Safetyprofessional (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an across-the-board thing or is it just my computer?

Hi guys, there's something terribly wrong with Wikipedia today, at least on my computer. The infoboxes aren't appearing, and all the template tags (e.g. "AfD tags") are just appearing as plain text. Additionally, all my watchlisted items are bolded, which hurts my eyes somewhat. Is anyone else experiencing the same? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not experiencing any problems. What browser are you using? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 12:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problems here. Perhaps try bypassing your cache? --LukeSurl t c 15:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a page, but think that the punctuation is wrong for the references.

I have created a page for "Raymond Paul Russell". He was a child actor, journalist and for the last 10 years a novelist. He has written 3 books. I don't want it to look like an advert just a historical listing so that I can add future novels. I think when I have put brackets around the links on the Internet I have used the wrong ones as a message has come up saying "Orphan". There are about 10 pages of links on Google for this person, am I using the wrong links or the wrong brackets? Help pleaseRandomharvest (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. A few points. The orphan tag is nothing to do with links from your article; it merely says that there aren't any links from other Wikipedia articles to your article. If he is sufficiently notable, you will hopefully find other articles than mention him and can be linked. On your user talk page there are a number of useful links for you to read. Help:Wiki_markup has a section on links and URLs, and you also need to read WP:Referencing for beginners. A number of the sources which you have tried to add are not considered reliable sources, because they are self-published or blogs, rather than publications for which someone exerts some editorial control. As to whether the subject is sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, you can read the guidance at WP:BIO. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on my first article

Hello! I just finished my first article and marked it for submission. I now see that it can take some time to get reviewed. I would love to get some feedback prior to it being reviewed so that I can work out any potential issues beforehand. I welcome any and all feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andy.price/sandbox

Specifically, I am hoping for feedback on the formatting and citing of references. Thanks, Andy Andy.price (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Andy. Your draft, which is now at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Porta Kleen, will be reviewed in due course, but one of the obvious concerns is that many of the references appear to be from the company which is the subject of the article. What Wikipedia is looking for is secondary sources, showing significant coverage of the subject in publications independent of the subject. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback! Would you mind expanding further on this topic?

The only items in the article that I am referencing from their website are the types of products that they offer and where they offer them, and in a few of those cases those facts are backed up by another reference. So I am referencing what would seem to be objective facts from the company's website, but is that not allowed? Can this article be published with references such as those, or would it be best for me to remove the content that is referring back to the company's website? Andy.price (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Andy! Welcome to the Teahouse. In order to have an article published on Wikipedia, you have to prove that the subject is notable. Encyclopedias (Not just Wikipedia) by definition are tertiary sources. That means we only have articles on subjects that reliable, independent, secondary sources have "made note" of.
The problem with your article is that the only two secondary sources (Lancaster Eagle Gazette and Columbus Dispatch) are not linked to an online version so they can be checked. There are several cities in the country named Lancaster, and one happens to be in Metro Columbus. As the specific notability requirement for a company, WP:NCORP, requires widespread coverage, you can see where the location of the specific Lancaster is important. Another requirement for notability sources is that they be truly independent (not written from a press release) and predominantly about the subject. At this point, we just can't tell. Although online referencing is not strictly required, without at least one solid source for notability that can be verified, your chances of getting your article approved are very slim.
So, as you can see, the article's referencing needs to show two things: The verifiability of the facts, and the notability. I would think that the columbus paper should have an online version. And please be more specific about the other paper. Ideally, you would have a national mainstream publication (not trade journals, as they are almost universally written from press releases) talking about your subject. I hope this helps. Notability is a very confusing topic for newer editors. It is common to mistake notability for fame or importance, but there is no relation between them. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undeserved material on talk page

Greetings, I feel that part of a stupid and pointless debate in the talk page of an article has undeservedly spilled over into my own talk page, and has marred any legitimate communication there. What can I do to undo this or remove the ugly parts? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OrangeJacketGuy, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is your talk page, and for the most part you are free to blank sections or the whole page at your discretion. Archiving by moving sections to a subpage is preferred. Alternately you can use the {{hat}} template to create a collapsed section. Whatever edits you make, ensure that you apply them to the entire section so as not to misrepresent the contents. Finally, I think you should keep in mind that when others visit your page it is your own comments that will reflect your character and not those of your correspondent. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am curently putting together an article on my late grandfather. To stay within the rules I am making it as objective as I can ...that's another story.

My question is about the copyright status of an item

My grandfather was presented with a citation which was illustrated. This was back in 1945 and I have no idea who drew it. Clearly, it is still technically in copyright (in the UK I think it is 70 years after the death of the originator) but I have no idea who did the drawing and I very much doubt that the copyright would have any value or be asserted by anyone - but I'm not the owner of the copyright (and can't supply proof of who is) so I don't know the best way to handle this. I decided to go for "Creative Commons" and I still think this is the best way but I am being asked to substantiate the copyright. Help!!! Thanks Steve Steveupstone (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steveupstone and welcome to the Teahouse. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but no Wikimedia Foundation project will willingly do anything that violates copyright. Your doubts that the copyright has value, or will be asserted by anyone? That means nothing to us. If the copyright is worth one cent, or a fraction thereof, and the chance of someone asserting it is far less than the chance of you or I winning a massive lottery prize, we still won't violate that copyright. It simply isn't going to happen if experienced Wikipedians are watching. So, your choices are to use an image that complies with copyright law, or use no image at all. Though the rules are complex, the underlying principle is simple: We allow no copyright violations whatsoever. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrology

Would the enormous (and potentially expandable) Fishing_Creek_(North_Branch_Susquehanna_River)#Hydrology section be likely to survive as the standalone article Hydrology of Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)? Thanks, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 21:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm not sure, the current Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)#Hydrology seems like a good section with many good info and sources, I wouldn't make a "Main Article" or "See Also" page. By checking other river related Wiki-pages, they don't seem to have another standalone article linked to it. For example; the Don River has a Hydrology section that isn't too long but doesn't have a standalone article. ///EuroCarGT 01:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@EuroCarGT: I've noticed that before, but the particular section seems to have a huge potential for expansion, but it seemed like a bad idea to have it take up 1/2 the article. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 11:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to turn-off Article feedback tool

Hey, I accidently turned on the article feedback tool on the Senthil Kumar page. I want to turn it off. Can anyone help on this? Thanks -- L o g X 19:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@LogX: It seems to have already been done by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 21:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he did it for me. Can you tell me how to perform it manually. (ie. by non-admins) Thanks -- L o g X 21:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's possible for non-admins , but if there's someone who knows otherwise, they could correct me. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 21:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Thanks for your help! smile Let's wait and see anyone has the answers! -- L o g X 21:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Article Feedback Tool, where I answered your cross-posting there. Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Fuhghettaboutit: -- L o g X 14:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice

Hi, I have created a new subpage User:Benison P Baby/pagenotice. How can I put it in my talkpage's edit new section page???? Benison talk with me 12:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When do I request an editor?

Hello, I have written my first article. I'm not bad at writing but I am NO editor. My article is in line (11 days since written) for review. Can I ask someone to edit it, while maintaing my "place in line" to be reviewed? Is it a good idea to bring in an editor at this time? --User:GMarin (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! From the backlog, it looks like you are about halfway there. I took a quick look at your article. It is well written and formatted. I found one thing you need to address before it gets a real review. The most important thing for you to establish in your article is notability. Wikipedia has guidelines to determine which subjects can have articles about them and which do not. For example, I am definitely not notable. The subject of your article is very borderline, and that puts your article in danger of being rejected by the reviewer. Generally, a subject is notable if they have received significant coverage in the news, have books written about them, or similar. There are additional guidelines for military personnel who do not meet the general guideline, such as naval officers of rear admiral rank or higher. You can find the full list at WP:SOLDIER. As written, your article does not reference any sources which provide significant coverage of the subject, and as far as I can tell he does not meet any of the requirements for a notable officer. If he is not notable, there is nothing you or I can do in the way of improving the article to meet that requirement. If he is notable, you will need to document that by providing references to news articles or other sources. I don't see any other problems that would keep the article from being accepted. DPRoberts534 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GMarin. I agree with DPRoberts534. The problem with your draft is that it does not seem that this person is notable by Wikipedia standards, as described in WP:SOLDIER. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi to both of you! I took your advice and I am add a bunch of references. We'll see. but thanks for your time!! GMarin 21:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrh246 (talk • contribs)

citing my first article

Im just trying to post by first article. Its for a person, my client, I'm creating him a wikipedia page, he already has one for his company, but he needs a personal one as well. It's asking me to cite the work but i cant seem to figure it out. The only source im using is the official website (phoenixancientart.com) so can that be my only reference? please help! thank you!! HichamAboutaam (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. You should not be editing for a client; please read WP:COI. Furthermore, if there are no reliable sources independent of the subject, then by definition he is not sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia article. Give him his money back. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, HichamAboutaam. I'm afraid you and your client have a fundamental misunderstanding about Wikipedia. He does not need a Wikipedia page, and the fact that you and he think he does implies that the purpose is promotion, which is forbidden. Wikipedia wishes to have articles on every notable subject: the wishes of the subject are irrelevant. --ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to find out a previously uploaded image

Actuall I have uploaded an image named: Shrine of Ahmed Ullah Maizbhanderi- Old.jpg a while before. But failed to find it out. I encounterd this problem once before. Please, let a process to find out any specific image. ... Sufidisciple (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sufidisciple, welcome to the Teahouse. You can find a log of all the images you have uploaded. At the top of this page, to the right there is a link that says "Contributions". Click the link to see a list of all your edits to Wikipedia. That page will be titled "User Contributions". Below the title find a link that says "uploads". Click that link to see all your uploads to Wikipedia. The file you mentioned was not uploaded to Wikipedia. Instead it went to Wikimedia Commons, a related website. Above your list of uploads you should see a link for Wikimedia Commons. Go to that page and you will find the missing file. You can wiki-link images from Commons on Wikipedia articles the same way you would a Wikipedia image. Hope that helps. DPRoberts534 (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hi! I like to make edits, but I don´t know how to edit a source. I have got a lot of messages about edits with no reelable source, but the thing is that I don´t know what to do. If I could learn to edit a source, than I could help with editing. Like, how do I edit a source to synopsis that I have read for an upcoming episode? Or I edit who directed an episode, but the episode has not been sent on tv yet. How do I do this? Twotimer17 (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Twotimer17. I suggest that you read Referencing for beginners and feel free to ask additional questions here. Good luck! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Twotimer17. After you read about referencing, you can practise doing it in your sandbox. It doesn't matter how badly you mess up text there, because you can always erase it and try again. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can´t do this. It´s so annoying and frustrating that I can´t make a source!!! Can somebody PLEASE help me. I ave given up on this whole project because I don´t understand that wikipedia page about sources! I would like to make a source after I write the synopsis for an upcoming episode. Can someone please tell me what to do?! Twotimer17 (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can do it. I can, so I know others can. What specifically cant you reference. A ref, provides veracity. It is critical. Otherwise, if I were to say, yeah man, Whoopflarea, Kentucky is a cool place, and not have a ref, most folks would say, oh man, there is no way in hell, a place exists called Whoopflarea. BUT, it does and it had a post office. Let me know if I can helpCoal town guy (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating multiple sandbox

I have article in my sandbox. That is not complete yet. Aside, I would like to begin another article but also in a sandbox. In this case, may, I create multiple sandboxes? How? ... Sufidisciple (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sufidisciple-- thanks for your question. You can definitely make multiple sandboxes on your userspace. Just type in User:Sufidisciple/NAME HERE in the search bar and tell it to create a new page. You can name your sandbox page pretty much anything you want, whether that's Sandbox1 or something more descriptive like the working title for your article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


How can I utilize that template for my sandbox? I'm creating a series of articles. For the second one I just used sandbox_02, but having the master sandbox as shown here would be very helpful. Thanks!

KELightsey (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to get away with just pasting {{User:Technical 13/SandBox/DraftHeader}} as the content of your sandbox, just like User:Sufidisciple/sandbox looks. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And, of course, you can move User:KELightsey/sandbox 02 to User:KELightsey/sandbox/SQL Command Design Pattern, or whatever you want to call it.
While I'm here, looking at your earlier sandbox draft which was moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SQL Facade Design Pattern, I fear that the amount of detail you've got there isn't appropriate for a wikipedia article, and I'm sure that it won't be accepted without references to published reliable sources which demonstrate the notability of the subject. Someone will hopefully review your draft in due course, but the detail may have frightened reviewers off. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Help Required On Stub pages

Hello, I have a question here, If you go visit Category:Pakistan_organisation_stubs you will see many pages doesn't fall in wikipedia notability guideline. They only have 1 Reference link and in 70% of the cases those references are from primary sources. What is the best approach to cater this type of stubs? Should they be recommended for deletion or leave as it is? Some of the pages were created back in 2010 or 2011. As these pages are from pakistan i advise other wikipedians to not edit them if they are not aware of the local language or newspapers etc. --Virgininfatuation (talk • contribs) 11:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just To add some additional data, have a look at this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_%E2%80%93_School_for_Girls , this possibly looks like an advert, the reference improve tag was added on april 2010, What actions do you guys recommend for this type of pages? Should we simply add notability notice? or does this fall under deletion criteria? Thanks --VIRGIN INFATUATION (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A small point, but when (within Wikipedia) we want to link to another Wikipedia page, we use wikilinks like [[AES – School for Girls]] (giving AES – School for Girls), rather than internet URLs like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_%E2%80%93_School_for_Girls. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article that you have pointed out sure looks like an advertisement to me, and doesn't have any information about the school - not even it's whole name. It is likely a private school, but even that is not in the article. I would propose it for deletion. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Category:Pakistan_organisation_stubs: I picked 5 at random:
  • Awami Workers Party: This has one presumably-reliable source which demonstrates its existence but it may or may not demonstrate its notability. This is a merger of several political parties, at least one of which already has a Wikipedia page. I won't say it is notable, but it is very likely at least as notable as the most-notable party from which it is formed. A Google search gave more than a few non-first-party results.
  • Karachi Fisheries Harbour Authority: While there is nothing in this article which would suggest notability, I'm going to have to defer to locals as to whether fishing authorities are "presumed notable" (that is, where the person claiming non-notability will be challenged unless he claims to have done a diligent search for references before claiming non-notability) in the same way that, say, incorporated cities in most countries are generally presumed notable. In any case, the notability of this and similar fishing authorities should be looked at both as a group and individually. I also noted a contradiction between the article text and the reference text and added the appropriate template and started the appropriate discussion.
  • Sindh Hari Committee: This needs more information, backed by reliable sources, to survive AfD if someone nominates it for deletion.
  • District Bar Association Faisalabad: If it is the largest bar association in Pakistan, it should be easy to find reliable sources to demonstrate notability. However, it lacks them.
  • Ida Rieu School: This article adequately demonstrates the notability of the topic.
My recommendations: Ask yourself: If you were to do a diligent search for information, including print sources, is it likely you could improve the article enough to demonstrate notability? If the answer is definitely "no" then propose it for deletion or nominate it for deletion through Articles for deletion. If the answer is "probably not" then put a {{notability}} template on it. If the answer is "probably" or "yes," then either improve the article, leave a note on the talk page saying that you think the topic is probably notable and that article needs improvement and add any appropriate cleanup templates, or just silently leave it alone as I have done with most of the examples above.
This being the teahouse, I recommend that new Wikipedia editors not propose articles for deletion or nominate them for deletion, and that they be careful before putting {{notability}} or other cleanup templates on a page unless it is blatently obvious that they are needed. Basically, until you've at least read all of the content polices and guidelines and skimmed through the non-content polices and guidelines, and after doing so had significant participation in deletion discussions, you should not propose or nominate items for deletion unless it is a blatant case that might even qualify for speedy deletion. Again, this is just my recommendation, other experienced Wikipedia editors may not share my recommendation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bundle of thanks David. Will follow your suggestions. --VIRGIN INFATUATION (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding location data

Hi, I have been working on displaying Wikipedia Article on a map that I and my coding partner have been developing. Its a Wiki Mapping platform called Mapedia. The aim is to give a view onto locations, with a historical context. To get the ball rolling, we have pulled in Wikipedia's articles, within a location centric context (our map!). This will, I hope, allow users to learn about the world around them and we hope in time to build a reciprocal replationship with Wikipedia i.e. encouraging those that add data directly to our map, to also add it to Wikipedia.

To this end, I have been looking at Wikipedia's article location data. On the whole, pretty good and there are a lot of strong articles with location data supplied. Where it does have issues though is with people. Take Anglo-Saxon historical personalities, your Kings, Queens, Abbot, Saints and so on. There are a wealth of articles on these people, but none, or at least very very few have location data (lat long).

Now I know that location data for a person may seem odd, but I think adding this would allow them to be added to our map, and locate them within the sphere of their lifetimes influence. Usually figures have some form of location to which they can be assigned, and the lead from this can come from their title (King of Wessex) or some other location that their article outlines. Think of it this way, you'd have a map of forts, palaces, villages and so on, but no people, and of course this is not a true reflection of the history. We DO have this data for some periods of history, so it would be a real shame not for this to also make it to our map.

So. what do others think on this issue. I DO want to add location data for people, but I do not want to muddy the waters. What would be the best course here? I guess for many the location may not be of much interest or importance, but it would be of great importance to our project.

Viewpoints most welcome Mapedia (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mapedia. You are asking a very broad question. My educated guess is that it would be very difficult to gain consensus for adding generalized location data to biographies. Notable people tend to move around a lot, and deciding which location is most representative would be entirely subjective in many cases. I have a "minimalist" and a "maximalist" idea for you. How about using the place of birth, and in the case of dead people, the place of death? These are two standardized locations that are included in the majority of our biographies.
For the subset of our Good Articles and Featured Articles which are biographies, one could assume that the location data contained in the wikilinks within that article to geographical locations would constitute a "map" of that person's geographical impact. This might be dozens or hundreds of locations, and it would be fascinating to see those plotted out on a map.
I recommend that you take a look at WP:USERNAME. The name associated with your account has a number of problems, as it implies that is a shared account rather than one for an individual person, and that it represents an organization. Please consider a name change. Thank you.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my username, I am using Mapedia, as I represent that organisation. Is this bad protocol here? If so, I can create another user account for editing and so on. However, using this account, does mean that I, or other Mapedia team members can also perform edits, create posts etc and these can be easily traced to us.

Maybe I should create a hybrid user along those lines i.e. mapedia_chrisThomas ? That way, each editor has an specific profile, whilst also representing Mapedia?

In terms of adding locations to bio's. Yes, I think some form of standard approach would make sense. I mean, as a user, if there IS a location, then you have an expectation of what would mean. Would it be the persons Birth Place, place of death, or some other arbitrary point in their life. We could follow this principle, Birthplace or Deathplace (?!), or failing these, the location of the persons most notable actions.

Take Harold Godwinson (English King), killed at the Battle of Hastings. We would use his birthplace first, or his deathplace, or the location of the Battle of Hastings. In this case, the Battle of Hastings and his deathplace coincide...

Another example, Hitler. Obviously we have many many details of his movements, and actions. So in this case, its best to plumb for his Birthplace.

In many cases, as we go way back into history, bio detail tends to get fragmented. So the birthplace, deathplace may not be known. Indeed even major events in their lives locations may be unknown, or educated guesses. So we need a hierachy of location options to fall back on.

Another issue we have. Some Articles are very rich with location data, BUT they are presented as a list of locations within that Article. An example would be...

List of Iron Age hoards in Britain

This information is fine. But for our map to make use of it, we would need each location split out into its own Article, with the location data presented near its top, plus all the other imagery and info on each hoard. I guess these Articles would then be presented as stubs, inviting further detail, imagery and so on as Wikipedia evolves.

Again, all viewpoints welcome Mapedia (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This type of "meta" information is probably best handled by Wikidata rather than trying to load articles directly with it. If it is on Wikidata it is also instantly available to all other Wikipedias, not only this English one. Unfortunately I'm not well versed in the ways of Wikidata but I'm sure someone who can help could be found quite easily. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All coordinates are indeed best stored on Wikidata, but I do not think anybody seriously discussed an option of using coordinates for biographical articles. Possibly, d:Wikidata project chat would be the best place to start a discussion over there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are accessing the location data indirectly, using the Wikimedia API to access the Article data. Firstly we ask for all Categories that match a seed name, such as Anglo-Saxon. Then we request a list of all Articles within those Categories, and finally we request the location data for each of the Articles returned. We can then check this lat long for a country, if it is not given in the location data, via reverse geo-lookup. This then gives us more choice when assigning Articles to our own internal Categorisation system. When then use the Categories of each Wikipedia Article to allow for the Filtering of display of these Articles on our map.

We are working on getting the first maps using this system live, in the next few days. We have been working on some bugs, but we are ready to push out in the very near future. I'll post here again when there is something to share.

One other issue I have found is, some Articles do NOT return a location via the API request, despite the Article actually having location data in their articles. It seems only certain formats of location markup, guarantee a location returned. This is something I would like to understand further. Right now, even for articles that are clearly location based, there is not often a location given, so this is certainly something to help push forward on Wikipedia. I hope we can help drive this on Mapedia, where of course location is key to our display of information Mapedia (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=572941650"