Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 178

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 175Archive 176Archive 177Archive 178Archive 179Archive 180→Archive 185

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

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Kush I added the word Hindu to show that that Persian word for that mountain range comes from 'Hindu' and 'Kush', in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_kush#Origin_of_name section, but someone is reverting/undoing it. How do I get someone to resolve that dispute/arbitrate?—Khabboos (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Every article has an associated talk page where editors are encouraged to discuss improvements to the article. The best thing to do initially is calmly and politely explain your position at Talk:Hindu Kush. --LukeSurl t c 16:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, you should click 'view history' at the top of the article on Hindu Kush ... that will let you see the edit-summary that the person who reverted left, and whether it is one person, or more than one. Sometimes people don't leave edit-summaries, which is a bit annoying, but often they will give a reason for their revert. See also, WP:BRD which explains the usual process... when you inserted the change you were being properly WP:BOLD, and then someone decided to revert you for some reason, and now you are in the discuss phase. Feel free to drop back into the teahouse, if you need help with getting the finer points of the discussion ironed out, or whatever. Thanks for improving wikipedia, Khabboos, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
One AcidSnow is still reverting it - he probably wants us to avoid using the term 'muslim'. What should we do if the problem persists?—Khabboos (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
"he probably wants", are you being serous? You have already been told that "Muslim enslavers" is non-neutral. None of the sources even say Muslims nor give a period of history when the term began to be used. Could you also please not change quotes? AcidSnow (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Page Curation Question

Is there a way to see how many pages you have curated? Or is there a userbox to display this? Science Saturdays (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference list

How do I create a reference list at the bottom of a Wiki page? Thanks! Mademoiselle Q (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Bonjour, Mademoiselle Q. Start by putting all of your references in the actual text of the article, at the points where you want the citations to appear. Next, enclose all of them between <ref> and </ref> tags (note the backslash in that second one). Finally, create a section at the bottom of your artilce called "References", and put in it the template code {{Reflist}}. Job done. See this essay and this page for more information. Bon chance! Yunshui 雲‍水 20:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you – have a wonderful weekend! Mademoiselle Q (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

How to update information without getting vandalized

Hi -- I work for a corporate and have repeated tried to update our entry to include our new (as of 2005)logo and to update some out-of-date "controversial" information about a long-resolved lawsuit. SPACKlick keeps undoing my edits.

How do I provide substantiated resources to make the changes?(I tried citing our 10-k filed with the SEC)Does an inaccurate, incomplete newspaper article override official corporate documents? AND how do I delte the entry entirely since it is so outdated and inaccurate and I am precluded from providing any updates? Someone from my company did not make the entry in the first place. Thanks for any advise you can provide.

199.96.16.11 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Before reading the rest of my reply please read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines which detail why it isn't a good idea to edit an article with which you are affiliated.
Now to clarify a few things, first being that your information was not vandalised. Another, experienced, editor reverted your changes because you removed sourced content without much in the way of explanation. All content on wikipedia must be sourced to reliable independent sources so that the reader knows it is true. We simply can't take people's word for it that any information is false, especially so when the person claiming it to be false is affiliated with the subject of the article. It would be very easy for someone to come along and say 'I never did any of those bad things in my article' regardless of whether they happened otherwise. Second, no one owns any article. This means that your company doesn't own it, and it cannot be deleted unless under one of Wikipedia's deletion rules regarding the article itself; not simply a request for deletion.
If you want to update the article please provide - on the talk page for that article - reliable (news articles, books, etc.) independent (not press releases or things written by the company) sources which discuss the new information. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If I quote an external source 10 times, does it have to appear 10 times in the notes?

I quoted twice ^ Pierre Schapira. "Masaki Kashiwara and Algebraic Analysis" in Masaki Kashiwara can I do it in such a way that it will not occur twice in the notes?85.139.132.194 (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I have done so for you. You can do it by using <ref name="name"></ref> the first time you use a specific reference, and then <ref name="name" /> (the nowiki-tags around both cases are just to make it display as it should, they should not be copied into the article) for any further occurrences in the article. "name" can of course be replaced by anything, except for pure numerals (I have used the author's name in the case of the article you were speaking of) and must have double quotations ("...") if the refname has a space in it. See also WP:REFNAME, it's a bit more in-depth. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Easier way to add archiveurls

Hi! I like to add archived versions of Internet references to prevent link rot. Is there an easier way to do this instead of adding archiveurl= and archivedate= to each reference that I archive?

Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. I personally think {{cite web|archiveurl=|archivedate=}} is easy enough, but what alternative do you have in mind? the RefToolbar is an alternative. (You'll need to click "Show extra fields", though.) You could suggest it another alternative here or possibly at Help talk:Citation Style 1 (Citation Style 1 being the citation method that employs {{cite web}} and others). --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 05:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, oops, didn't see that. Thank you for your time, Bananasoldier (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, what I had in mind was using a tool like Checklinks, which I found here, to add archived versions, but I'm not sure how to use this tool. Bananasoldier (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you update a outdated logo on a page 67.231.54.241 (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OUr logo has been updated and the old one is displaying on the page. How do you update a outdated logo on a page? Is there a way to upload the photo? 67.231.54.241 (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

To do it yourself, create an account, wait four days making at least ten productive edits in that time, and follow the procedures regarding non free content to the letter. If you give the name of the article and a link to the new logo, an experienced editor here may assist you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I uploaded a photo that includes several men with Wikipedia biographies... all things in red should be live links to existing articles, and I don't know what I did wrong. The names are as they appear on the articles... I am stumped. Thank you much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HUPSF_Lampoon_Folder1_Image3_1885.pdf


I have placed this image on the biography of Thomas Parker Sanborn and plan to use it on the Lampoon article as well. Thanks. Kathrynklos (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The links on File:HUPSF_Lampoon_Folder1_Image3_1885.pdf are red because the description there is a copy of the page at Wikimedia Commons. The links are trying to look for articles on the same wiki that it is written at, but Commons doesn't have articles (though William Randolph Hearst links to a gallery of images someone has curated). Therefore the links are red. To make these links on Commons link to the associated articles on the English Wikipedia, edit the description page there and use a piped link such as [[:en:The Harvard Lampoon|The Harvard Lampoon]]. --LukeSurl t c 20:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello LukeSurl the images are at Wiki-Commons this means you need to use the parameter w: to the linked them to link to Wikipedia... like [[w:The Harvard Lampoon|The Harvard Lampoon]]. See this edit to see what I did. -- Moxy (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all! Kathrynklos (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to create a wikilink to a page I know exists (Knowledge Translation) but in my preview it shows up red, and says it doesn't exist. Will it go blue when I save my changes?

BlazewareBlazeware (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Knowledge Translation looks blue to me, but Knowledge translation doesn't - Are you using capitals or mixed case? Arjayay (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm using non caps in my text and the wiki page I'm referring to does use title caps - but I don't want to use title caps in my referring text - what should I do? Blazeware (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The article title should have been in sentence case, so I have moved it from Knowledge Translation to Knowledge translation (with a redirect remaining from the old title). If I had not done that, you could have used a piped link; [[Knowledge Translation|Knowledge translation]] displays as Knowledge translation but points to Knowledge Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
ok thanks - I've got it.Blazeware (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism in Pakistan

I added two references from reputed Pakistani newspapers at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Pakistan but it has been removed. If discussion on the Talk page doesn't help what should I do next?—Khabboos (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Khabboos, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't tell for sure why AcidSnow removed your addition, but my guess is that AcidSnow first removed the 2005 citation as not relevant to discussing the current state (they left your 2014 citation in); and then removed the claim because the citation does not back it up. The article in question is talking about attacks on minorities in Pakistan, not specifically Hindus; and in fact refers to two attacks on Churches within the last few months. Therefore your wording "Hindus are still targeted and persecuted in Pakistan today", while strictly true, is a misrepresentation of what the cited article states: it is rather your conclusion from the article, which is forbidden under Wikipedia's rules on original research. But I urge you to discuss the matter with AcidSnow on their talk page, and try to reach agreement. I reformatted your link in the title above as a Wikilink, rather than a URL --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
ColinFine, you have hit the nail on the head. You have stated every single reason for my removal of those statements. Also, Khabboos, could you please stop making multiple topics about the same thing? AcidSnow (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The Musketeers (2014 TV series)

Hi, given that each episode of this series receives a fair few million, is it worth an article for each episode? Thanks, Matty.007 19:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I agree, unless the line that says " ...of ten parts... " on the summary paragraph is the same as episodes, else give each part an article. My POV. Emekadavid (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you expand stubs?

How do you expand Stub-class articles? I'd like to know if there are some useful tips on how to expand articles or if there's a guideline explaining how to do it. Thanks!Gg53000 (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Gg53000: Hey Gg53000. First, expanding a stub is no different than simply (and boldly) writing from scratch a substantive article, it's just that you already have a placeholder for the content, hopefully with some small part of the heavy lifting, like an infobox, reference formatting and the like, already in place. What I'm getting at is that "stub" is just a designation for an article that has been started but is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a topic. You might or might not be thinking "duh", but I have many times seen questions where it is obvious a person thinks a stub is some special type of page beyond this, so I wanted to cover that possibility. With that being said, I would start with taking a run through the Wikipedia:Tutorial which covers the basics of editing and formatting in an organized manner (unless that's too basic for you), and once done there, I'd head over to Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also take a glance at Wikipedia:The perfect article.

Keep in mind that the wellspring of all good content is citation to reliable sources that verify the information one adds; that you should write from a neutral point of view; and that there should be no original research involved in what you write. Finally, though I have cited here a lot of policies, guidelines and help pages, I think that for some people the very best way to see how to write a great article in a specific area, is to look at great articles that have already been written in that area. So, you might head over to Wikipedia:Featured articles, and study a few in the same subject area, if possible, to see what we consider our best content. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gg53000. My friend Fuhghettaboutit has given you some excellent advice. Let me state it in very simple terms: Study the topic of the stub article. Significantly expand and reference the article, in accordance with policies and guidelines. Remove the stub tag. Pat yourself on the back, and move on to the next stub. Thank you for improving the encyclopedia! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

How to attribute a image to a source.

I was going to post a picture from wikimedia commons but I noticed that it is in the public domain and I just need to attribute it to the source (National Archives), I searched for it in Wikipedia but I only found answers for text, not images.Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa 04:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Marzan (talk • contribs)

Hi, no you don't need to attribute public domain images in any manner.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Andrei Marzan. When you add a freely licensed or public domain image from Wikipedia Commons to an article, then the proper attribution is already embedded with the image automatically. Any reader can click on the image to get a file description. They can then click on the Commons link there to get the full attribution associated with the image there. That's all that is required. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you--Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa 05:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Marzan (talk • contribs)

Workaround to the CC-nocommercial?

Hi! I want to upload an image that is a screenshot of a videogame that the company took itself. The image is listed as creative commons but with a CC-noncommercial, so it doesn't fit the criteria for WikiMedia Commons. However, can this image still be uploaded under non-free uploading system? Thanks, -Bananasoldier (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bananasoldier. Please refer to the guideline on Non-free content, which allows uploading videogame screenshots to Wikipedia (not Commons) for critical commentary on the game itself. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Basic Requirements for Startups company history page

I need minimal requirement for small companies. which have less info . I tried two times in creating article. Failed! so please help me in this. Ttthangasenthilraja (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The specific guidelines are Wikipedia:NCORP. I see you have created a new article Today Job Post.com. This article does not show any evidence that the company has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources as WP:NCORP requests. The article is very likely to be deleted because of this. If you wish to work on the draft without threat of deletion, please copy and paste the code of the article into a page in your userspace or as a new draft in WP:Articles for creation. --LukeSurl t c 14:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) All articles require significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Looking at Today Job Post.com your only references are to the company's web-site - which is not independent, and the companies blog, which is neither reliable or independent. Until you have received significant coverage, not just a mention in passing, in reliable sources such as The Times of India and The Hindu your article will continue to be deleted. What can you do? wait until you have grown into an important company. Arjayay (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I note the article has now been deleted. - Arjayay (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You can make it into a draft if you like, and if you do you can take a look at Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft, but if you give up, you can delete it or donate it to Wikiproject abandoned drafts.--Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa 08:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone is continuously marking my article for deletion. Can someone please moderate this? I have diplomatically done everything correct and feel bullied.

Someone is marking for deletion my article continuiously and I have justified the importance of the article and the reliablity of the reference which is the Government of Canada website. This feels to me like unjustified bullying. Is there someone who can help me here?Chipndalewiki (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chipndalewiki welcome to the Teahouse! Sorry to hear you feel bullied. You mean Published Authorised Licensed Producers under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations Canada I guess? Unfortunately some topics aren't appropriate for the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Encyclopedias include subjects/things that are proven to be important or widely known (what we call 'notable'). If you know of any news sources of independent reliable publications that talk about the Published Authorised Licensed Producers, proving it is important, then you have a few days to add the sources to the article. Otherwise I fear Wikipedia is the wrong place for this particular topic. All the best! Sionk (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Chipndalewiki. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that it is not a directory or the yellow pages. As your article stands it is just a directory list. Articles have to be written as in an encyclopedia.--Charles (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I have made some edits to the article:
  • I have removed the phone numbers. As Charles states, Wikipedia is not a directory. [1]
  • I have removed "reliable source" from the text. This is clearly part of the debate as to the subject's notability. This should be kept to the talk pages, rather than discussed on the article. [2].
  • I have removed POV text about this being "of great significance to Canadians" [3]
  • I have made all the items on the list into wikilinks. [4]
No articles for any of these entities currently exist. It's questionable whether a list which doesn't point to any existing articles has any real purpose. --LukeSurl t c 11:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Country name with country flag by the side

Is there a template for country name with country flag by the side? I saw it on a french Wikipedia page, used the template from the french and was redflagged! I wonder if we have it in English Wikipedia. Emekadavid (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! Is {{flag}} what you are looking for? --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 21:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
or {{flagicon}}, or {{flagcountry}}, or others at Category:Flag template system. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Closed. What I was looking for. Emekadavid (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
But please note that the English Wikipedia does not use these flags as often as Wikipedias in some other languages. For example, MOS:ICON#Avoid_flag_icons_in_infoboxes states "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field" - Arjayay (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Updated one reference on the Winona County Minnesota information page, then lost everything

Was trying to bring back the font size for References, under Winona County information sheet on Wikipedia, but then lost all the references. Is there any way to recover those references?Wood Geek (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you were trying to do, but I started by putting it back to how it was this morning, and David Biddulph changed it again before I could sort it out. The reference now appears in "See also"" which I'm sure it shouldn't do. Arjayay (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Corrected, but the last reference needs to be moved to just after the text which it is supposed to be supporting. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for cleaning this up. The last reference pertains to Geography and native vegetation, based upon NRCS soils information. The book cited has alot of NRCS soils information for Winona County and many other counties in Minnesota.Wood Geek (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The last reference pertains to the pie chart or color wheel, but the book only has savanna soils. Most people want to see what all the soils are in a particular county, not just the savanna soils. The pie chart or color wheel answers all of that, showing what kind of soils are in the entire county.Wood Geek (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
One final note: there are 63 separate soil types for Winona County. The color wheel takes all 63 soil types and sorts them, by their native vegetation descriptions... into 11 different colors, so the reader can get a quick idea or profile of the native vegetation in the county.Wood Geek (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Using foreign language sources for notability

Hi. I have just been reading a biography of a living person. The notability of the person is dependent on two foreign language (German) web articles and a third in English but which in my opinion does not show notability. Editors are supposed to be able to verify sources, however, I do not read German, so how can I verify that these two German sources support notability of the person? This is EN wikipedia, so shouldn't these be accessible to English speakers? Is there a policy on this? Thanks in advance for comments.__DrChrissy (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DrChrissy. This is the free English language encyclopedia of the entire world and universe, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. Notability can be established by reliable sources in any language, and foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable here. In addition, it is not necessary that sources be available online. There are countless reliable sources in books, periodicals and newspapers that Google has not yet digitized. These are just as acceptable as sources available online. Accordingly, a book published by a reputable university press in a language you've barely heard of, which is not available online, is still a perfectly acceptable reliable source. The sources you mention are accessible to English speakers. You can go to your local college and enroll in a German class, study hard, and get an "A" in the class. You can use Google Translate or other machine translation services to get a rough idea of what the German language sources say. You could ask an active editor fluent in German such as Gerda Arendt to assist you. You could hire a professional translator at a very reasonable rate through the internet. Or, you could choose to trust the editors who cited those sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Cheers. Thanks for this. I am well versed with the accessibility issue. I have university access to science journals which most other people do not - I have been accused of using unverifiable material because of this. I take your point that if I got off my backside I could get the articles translated to verify notability - but your pragmatic view of trusting other editors is probably best for the collegiate philosophy of Wikipedia. Thank you very much for the advice. __DrChrissy (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
A correction. From WP:NOENG:

Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page

--Mark Miller (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
More of an elaboration rather than a correction, Mark Miller, and thank you. Yes, if a variety of high quality sources are available in English and in other languages, then English sources are preferred. But if only foreign language sources are available, about a 19th century French parliamentarian for example, then the French language sources are perfectly acceptable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
And really the wording is purposely vague. When we last debated this issue on the talk page we didn't want to make it sound as if this was a requirement, however it was discussed that such issues come down to the consensus of editors. I can still use an all Hawaiian source, especially on Hawaiian history where such sources are appropriate, but using an all Hawaiian source for say...George Washington...probably wont fly.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Given that the article I have read claims the person is an one of the world’s most respected experts in a branch of science, I would hope there are English sources which indicate notability. I can see from the above comments this issue is a little more complex than I initially thought. I think the best approach is to raise it on the Talk page and request English sources if these are available. Thanks all for your comments.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

How do I contact user "DynamoDegsy"?

Hi, The user has submitted quite lengthly articles about family members, I am quite humbled as there has obviously been a lot of work put into the research and I thought I might be able to help them by clarifying dates for them and giving them any other information. I would also like to thank them as their work has ensured my grandfather snd great-grandfather will be remembered.

Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleandlively (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. To contact a user, go to their user talk page, in this case User talk:DynamoDegsy. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Received deletion... Don't understand why... HELP ME ! Thank you

Hello from Paris,

I created a page about the singer Bernie Adam... but I received message it was correct !!! My English is not as perfect as I would wish so I'm lost to keep on working on this page, sadly !

So I'm looking for some help... Thank you very much in advance.

Kind regards from Paris.

BA4ever BAFan4ever (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, BAFan4ever, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not sure what you think when you say you "received message it was correct". Actually, you received a message on your talk page that the article you created, Bernie Adam, is nominated for speedy deletion under A7 criteria (the article was later deleted). That means that you wrote article about a person, but you did not explain why this person is significant, nor did you cite any reliable independent sources to prove his notability. That article is now deleted, so I can't see it's content (only administrators can), but, I can guess what happened. Wikipedia has high standards about notability, especially about the notability of living persons. Wikipedia's wp:Notability criteria is different from everyday usage of that word. In Wikipedia, notability of a person is proved by citing reliable sources (books, magazines, newspapers, serious web portals,...) that write about that person's life and work (not just mention him in passage, see: WP:42). Your article probably did not cite any references, and probably did not explain why the person is significant (see WP:PEOPLE to see the reasons person is/isn't regarded "notable" in Wikipedia). You may try to write the article again, but be sure to read carefully those links I provided in this post before doing so. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I recently added some links to videos about certin persons. I felt the videos gave insight to the person. They were interviews with that person and gave insight into there thinking. Is this allowed? The videos were in Swedish as were the persons. Lawrence BergerLawrence Berger (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lawrence Berger, and welcome to the Teahouse. Citing videos as sources, or linking videos as external links is not prohibited, but is regulated by certain Wikipedia policies. If you want to use an external video as a source, it should be reliable, independent and have significant coverage of the subject. Any video that is hosted illegally (which YouTube videos usually are) is not allowed. Using videos as external links (this is what you did [5]) is not forbidden, but must abide by Wikipedia's External links guidelines. You can read this essay to learn more about video links in Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Video links. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What is going on with all the " and . and , on this page?

Am I crazy, or is this page utterly screwed up when it comes to quotation marks, commas, and periods?

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

I must have fixed a million things that even extend beyond these problems. Can someone take a look at this page?

Marc Bago (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

How can I divide an article of an author in early life, work, ...

I tried to write an article about Joygopal Podder. In other articles I saw that they are divided in parts like early life, work, awards and so on… How can i do that, please? :) 006john007 (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! These divisions are known as section headings. They are created by putting equals signs around the name of the section: == Early life ==
Subsections can be created with three equals signs === Childhood ===, and you can have up to five levels (six equals signs). --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much Anon126 ! I try to insert them. Good night! from Switzerland.

006john007 (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Whenever I come across a red link on a page that takes me to a previously deleted article, I always remove it, figuring it's useless. Is it, or does it have some benefit I'm just not aware of? meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Red links should usually only exist if the linked article should exist (meaning that it is verifiable and notable). If the article was recently deleted due to a lack of notability, then yep, the red link should be removed, or redirected to a relevant article if appropriate. Wikipedia:Red link goes into great detail about this :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks :) meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
@Meteor sandwich yum: I agree with SuperHamster but wanted to state the subtext. Red links to title that were deleted not based on a discussion which explored notability and/or verifiability on the merits (i.e. at WP:AFD), should not be unlinked simply because they were deleted, and this would cover the majority of deletions that take place. More articles are speedily deleted than by any other method and none of the criteria speak to whether we should or should not have an article and thus whether red links are warranted. For example, the fact that a title was created as a copyvio, a test, an advertisement, or even whether it fails to state importance, tells you nothing about whether the topic is actually notable and verifiable and a proper article could be written but has not yet been. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps what I was looking for... couldn't quite place it. Gratzie. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it a conflict of interest?

Is creating a biography page for a deceased great-great grandfather whom I've never met a conflict of interest?Jessica0Peace (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jessica0Peace - If you feel that you can write an article impartially about him, I wouldn't particularly worry about doing so. It may represent a conflict of interest on some level, but a lot of Wikipedia editors write about things that they have at least some degree of personal connection to (and thus some degree of potential COI.) Especially with people who have died and where there's not a commercial interest at stake, I don't view writing about a subject distantly related to you as a problem - and you may be the only person in a good position to write about them (since your family may be the only group that held on to the collated sources about him depending on his prominence.) We don't have a formal guideline regarding what degree of COI is acceptable, but I think that the idea of de minimis non curat lex applies. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Are there other ways to make a "pipe" symbol?

Please disregard the question. I learned that the back splash is the symbol above the enter key. Jessica0Peace (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a place to recommend a page creation?

In the case of a conflict of interest, is there a way to suggest the creation of a particular page to other users?Jessica0Peace (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation is an acceptable method for someone with a conflict of interest to draft an article, Jessica0Peace. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions about the user contributions page

What do the numbers in () mean? What does the +or- mean? What does bold mean? I'm guessing read means I messed up somehow.Jessica0Peace (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Hello again and welcome back to the Teahouse Jessica0Peace! Those numbers are simply a technical number of how many characters you added or removed from the page (technically bytes). red numbers - means you removed and green + numbers means you added. doesn't make the edit good or bad (removing stuff is sometimes needed to make good articles) Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

About verifiability of sources

I'm working on an article about a writer but there are 3 sources I'd like to include but can't get verification for because too much time seems to have passed. (1) This writer was quoted and named in an Edward R. Murrow radio broadcast in 1953. I have a typescript of the entire broadcast with a letter from Mr. Murrow but the radio station has no records going back that far. Can I include this mention as a source? (2) One of this writer's books seems to have been serialized on another radio station in the 1950s but again I have no record other than correspondence about it. Can this be included? (3) The writer gave some invited lectures at a university in the 1950s but there is probably no record of this. Can this be included? And one more issue: this person was given fellowships to the MacDowell colony twice. I have written to MacDowell for verification of the dates of her residency there but may not get a reply, though she is listed on their Website. Can I mention these fellowships even without the exact years?Morgan Le Fay (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Morgan Le Fay. Here are my thoughts: One of our core principles is verifiability. Someone must be able to verify any information in the encyclopedia, even if that verification is not necessarily easy. Let's start with the radio broadcast, item #1. Certainly, Edward R. Murrow was a reliable source. However, regarding broadcast sources, "an archived copy of the media must exist". Is your typescript an "archived copy"? Is your copy the only known copy, or are other copies available at a Murrow collection at a museum, for example? Those are the sorts of questions that would help determine whether or not that source should be used. As for item #2, private, unpublished correspondence is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia. Item #3, if you have no published record of the university lectures, then there is no reliable source to verify that they took place. As for your final point, you can mention the fellowships and cite that to the McDowell website. Don't mention the years, as you have no source for that, and a private letter or email doesn't qualify. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Book creation

How can I create more than one book? I'd like to work on at least two books.Avriel1 (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

About the theRedPenOfDoom

Dear Sirs, I created a page caled Niranjan Vanalli with reliable sources. He is an Indian journalist with a Karnataka Sahitya Academy Award equivalent to Booker in Karnataka. But some TheRedPenOfDoom has messaged me and proposed to delete the page as it talks of a person with a non notable award! I don't know what to do. I checked his talk page and found that he has done this to a lot of Wikipedians. Not only this - he's been reverting many of my edits for reasons of minimal value. He also says Wikipedia is not a reliable source[1]. Please help me out on this, It is important. Thankyou. Vighnesh HJ (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. He is quite correct in saying that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, see WP:CIRCULAR. You can find information about reliable sources at WP:RS. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe User:TheRedPenOfDoom did make some mistakes in the past, but he is correct about this one. Wikipedia may only contain articles about wp:Notable subjects. Notability is proved by citing reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that significantly cover the subject. The sources you've cited do not belong to this group. You cited: subject's own web page and the web page of his university (not independent sources), The Hindu article one sentence long (no significant coverage) and some Rotary Club brochure (not reliable source). This is not enough to prove subjects Notability. You mention him being awarded some award, but you do not cite any relibale independent source to prove that the award is notable. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for the feedback. I will add references for the award, but I have also added the university of Mysore Website. And I also added a sidebar for the page Kamal Haasan, but User:TheRedPenOfDoom reverted it. I don't know why.Haasan revision page And the sources I gave for Daniel Day-lewis in method acting page apart from Wikipedia is I think, notable.Acting revisions Please help me. --Vighnesh HJ (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighnesh HJ (talk • contribs) 13:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You added Template:Kamal Haasan sidebar to the article Kamal Haasan ([6]), but it was removed by User:TheRedPenOfDoom ([7]). The reason he removed it is his opinion that a navbox with only three links is not useful. I have to agree with him. Not every page needs a navbox. There are already links for the filmography and awards articles in the main Kamal Haasan article, so there is no need to link those again using a navbox. You also added some refrenecs to the "Method acting" article ([8]) to prove that Daniel Day Lewis is a practitioner of method acting, but those were removed by the same user TheRedPenOfDoom ([9]). I have to agree with him again. You inserted three references. First one cites another Wikipedia artcile, which is not allowed per WP:Circular. The second reference you added cites The Telegraph article which actually nowhere claims that Day Lewis practices method acting. It even says that "that term amuses him". Third reference cite The Wall Street Journal article and claims that Day Lewis is "famous for his exploration of method acting". It actually does not say that he practices it. Now when I think better, maybe this third reference could stay, because, I guess, exploring method acting cannot go without practicing it. But, strictly speaking, TheRedPenOfDoom is right — none of the three references you added establish verifability. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. I'm all clear now.--Vighnesh HJ (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

revelance and references

I would like to post information about Volta Caberet, a comedy night some friends and I were involved in, there is no record of it online though it received a lot of print publicity through the years. It was important in the context of comedic/drama in Dublin city and I would like to write about it.

Can I get help with editing the article?

I have good information, but I am having problems posting reference links and categorizing the piece. Eleven1972 (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Eleven1972. If there is a indeed lot of print about them (that is substantial, and independent of the subject, i.e. not just listings and not their own publicity and press releases, but writing at length about them) then you can certainly write an article: online links are convenient, but not required. I suggest you use the Article wizard (or some people find The Wikipedia Adventure a helpful way to get started). --ColinFine (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Requesting templates for creation

I have an idea for a wikipedia template (or infobox..I'm not really sure of the correct name but the little yellow things at the top of talk pages) for talk pages that tend to get into heated discussions... I was wondering if there was a way to submit the idea for inclusion in standard templatesNickmxp (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure exactly what you're aiming for in your template, but it sounds a bit like Template:Calm talk.
If that doesn't fit your needs, you can always be bold and make one yourself. The process for creating a template is pretty much the same for creating articles - there is no formal requirement or process to go through. I'd take a look at our template talk page for a good guide for creating templates.
If you don't want to create one yourself, there is Wikipedia:Requested templates, where you can request a template be made - I'm not sure how much activity that page gets, though. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nickmxp and welcome to the Teahouse! I see you've already gotten one response with some good ideas. Another option, if you think creating your own talk page banner is out of your league, is you can request one be made on WP:WikiProject Templates. Technical 13 (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I did get bold and started a design and was looking for more input.. I would like to submit this template I created in my sandbox...

Nickmxp (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand now... a template is linked the same way an article would be so it would show the template rather than the link to the article using wiki mark up.. is this correct? Nickmxp (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I figured it out... Template:Rational is this correct? If it is then thanks for the guidance! Nickmxp (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Not quite - templates user curly brackets ( { } ) instead of normal brackets ( [ ] ). The curly brackets "transclude" the content from whatever page is within the curly brackets.
As for the template, it's a nice idea, but definitely way too large for a talk page. Talk page headers should typically be small and concise. Most editors are aware of talk page conduct, and not many would bother reading the entirety of the chart. There's room for debate, but I think using Template:Calm talk or Template:Calm are the best options when discussions can get heated. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I had been wondering about the size too. I really do like the idea, though. A bit repetitious, but I like Graham's model.
I'm going to see if I can scale it down but make it readable. Not that much trouble to delete templates, you can always tag them with {{subst:db-self}} meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a work in progress...I scaled down the image because it was too large and found another aweome editor who is helping me clean it up! My hope with the rational template is to remind editors to base their disagreement on substance... rather than focus on the tone like the calm template does. as long as they read "the top three" the objective is accomplished.Nickmxp (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC) And thanks to the (pardon my american) mad wiki skillz of Meteor sandwich yum I do believe we have something that is pretty workable!Nickmxp (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. You made me feel really great helping you. I hope it works for you (and others).  :) meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Method_acting&oldid=592633162&diff=prev
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_178&oldid=1072499514"