Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 281

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 275

←

Archive 279

→

Help about my article being vandalised?

Hello, I have written an article Middlemores Saddles and now someone called 66.74.176.59 has started to vandalise it. The first time they changed some grammar so it made less sense, the second time they changed some factual wording. I am worried that it will escalate into more malicious vandalism. Can anyone help? Thanks. Middle MoreMiddle More (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello,Middle More. Please calm down, and assume good faith. I agree that those edits made by the IP are unhelpful: I see no evidence that they are intended to be disruptive (which is what vandalism is). My guess is that they are being misled by your putting the reference after William's name to thinking the James is not a son - but I don't know. I do know that what you are doing is edit warring, and both of you should be discussing the matter on the talk page rather than simply reverting each other. The earlier change you reverted: I too feel that "goes back to" is a little informal for an encyclopaedia, and would prefer "dates from" even if a date is not mentioned. I'm not about to change it back, but that is what makes me think that these edits are intended to be constructive. Please remember that it is not your article. --ColinFine (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am sorry if I was out of line in anyway. I felt this way after googling this person's ID and seeing that they have had a lot of conflict with other Wikipedia users and so having put so many hours into the article I was worried. Middle More Middle More (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Middle More. Another thing to be aware of: from your user id I think you have a conflict of interest regarding the article Middlemores Saddles. There are significant restrictions on the kind of edits you can make and also about declaring your relation to the subject of the article. Please review this article: wikipedia:COI --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not at all! As do many people around the internet on forums etc. being an enthusiast/fan I have used a screen name to reflect that. I have no connection in any way with the former company or family or any aspect. My interest came from being into cycling and an Ebay purchaser of saddles from private individuals who had listed them for sale. Middle More (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Middle More: - No harm, no foul. It might, however, help to request a change of name so people won't associate you with a particular brand. LS1979 (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I could alter it, I don't mind. Although since the very start no-one ever said there was a need before. Middle More (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Middle More: - writing an article on the company has brought you close to being misidentified as having a COI - which might hurt you if you edit extensively in a connected area: as demonstrated by this thread, people can't tell whether you are an official Middlemores representative or not, and writing their article raised eyebrows here. LS1979 (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Middle More: It isn't a good idea to refer to "my article" in Wikipedia. Even if you do not intend to be claiming ownership of the article, other editors may read that phrase that way and may become defensive. Also, it is a good idea to refrain from referring to edits with which you disagree as vandalism unless it is clear that they are malicious or disruptive. Read the guideline on what is not vandalism. In particular, if you aren't sure that an edit is vandalism, don't use that expression in an edit summary, because edit summaries are part of the permanent record. (They can be redacted by an administrator, but only under certain circumstances.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, point taken, in my second comment above I referred to it as "the article". Over time plenty of people have made edits and I was absolutely fine with them, but in this situation it was after finding out the person had caused a lot of conflict around Wikipedia that it seemed to be the case of vandalism here. Middle More (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on notability of subject

Hi. I just got a note back that my submission was rejected on the grounds that the subject was not notable. I suspect that I had too many references to the artist's website, which may give the impression of partiality. I'm guilty of partiality - I'm a fan, but I really want help to properly establish her notoriety so that her biographical information is included on Wikipedia. Complicating this somewhat is that the peak of her career was at a point where web publishing wasn't as advanced as it is now, so many of the critical third-party references that I can find are dead links. I guess I'd like to have some insight as to how I can establish notoriety from an editor's perspective. I really don't have the constitution to wage a crusade about this, but in terms of notoriety I compare her to other acts she collaborated with (who are included on Wikipedia) and her music has been recognized with more notoriety than them. Here's my submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michelle_Anthony - I would appreciate any help to create this entry so that it is published and I can regain my sanity. Thank you. Jim Dougherty (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

JimdoughertyonamissionYou just need to add reference, that proves your edit. Ochilov (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Jimdoughertyonamission welcome to the teahouse. To expand a bit on what Ochilov said: while your draft article has lots of references so far they aren't what wikipedia considers good references. Here are some things you should fix. BTW, keep in mind that it's just possible the artist just isn't notable in the Wikipedia sense. To start with web sites such as personal blogs, artist web sites, and fan web sites aren't considered good Wikipedia:References All those sites have an inherent bias for the subject of the article. Also, such sites have little or no oversight... no process to even attempt to validate the info presented there is true. Much better are articles in well known papers like the NY Times or Guardian or magazines like Rolling Stone or Time, etc. References in those kinds of sources are much better. Also, all your references right now are bare URLs References are much better if you format them and add (when available) things like date of the article, author, etc. I suggest you read this article Wikipedia:References for beginners Hope that helps. Reply back here or at my talk page if you have further questions. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Jimdoughertyonamission Here is an example of the difference between bare URLs and a properly formatted reference. Your draft had this as reference 12: <ref>http://174.123.25.3/music/articles/anthony04.html</ref> instead of formatting it like that it is better to do it like this: <ref>{{cite web|last1=Tanzilio|first1=Bobby|title=Anthony ready to "Stand Fall Repeat" on the national stage|url=http://174.123.25.3/music/articles/anthony04.html|website=OnMilwaukee.com|accessdate=6 December 2014}}</ref> I took the liberty of changing that Ref in your sandbox so you can see how it looks when used as a reference. BTW, using the ref tool (the widget that looks like the link in a chain) makes it easy to create refs like this. There are a bunch of templates where you fill in fields and it generates the Wiki code for you. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

twin links in a navbox

I'm preparing a navigation proposal in my sandbox, trying to get consensus about the content on an external forum. It looks like I need a single article to explain the three bobbin lace categories that are still red, and perhaps a few redirects to that article. My question: is it allowed to have three category links to the same article? Jo Pol (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no any rule in Wiki for this situation. I think, you can do it. Ochilov (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Poljo, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes you can add more than two categories to an article. As long as they are related to the subject you can add many as you like. Same thing goes for redirection. It has to be related to the articles subject otherwise someone else can remove your addition/redirect. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

How to delete ~500 redirects

I recently edited an article that had been created as an attack piece diff. That's fine; I'm happy it says what it should now.

I then when to look at the redirects, as the article's creator PPdd, now blocked, had spammed a lot of references.[1] I started adding db-g1 templates to them, but then realised he'd been far more prolific than I'd thought. Even if I could be bothered to do it, no one would thank me for 500 or so separate requests.

Is there a process for dealing with this sort of thing all in one go? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems I misunderstood the display; it's more like 100. Still, same question. Bromley86 (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh - good thing you caught on to this. I'm not sure whether it's possible to deal with these all in one go, and I'm not really sure that any of the speedy deletion criteria fits, but this is clearly a malicious campaign to drive traffic toward an attack page by any means. I'm especially concerned that a number of fairly common names were redirected to that page. For now, I think it's worth taking these down manually. Keihatsu ^talk 17:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Keihatsu. I undid one of your deletion requests and repointed it as (however unlikely) Branch Vinedresser is actually a name. Bromley86 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Stub templates

Should a new stub biography article about (let's say) an English entomologist be flagged with every possible stub, e.g. {{Scientist-stub}}, {{European scientist stubs}}, {{British scientist stubs}}, {{English scientist stubs}}, {{Biologist-stub}}, {{UK-biologist-stub}}, {{Zoologist-stub}}, {{UK-zoologist-stub}}, {{Entomologist-stub}}, {{UK-entomologist-stub}} (and possibly others) - or just with the lowest-level, most precise, one? (FWIW, I see some overload and redundancy in that list.)

(Non-overlapping stubs are a different matter. There might be stub articles about where the subject had studied or worked; in the instance I'm thinking of, there are.)

Summarising: if stub markers are needed on an article, should all levels of relevant stub markers be placed upon it, or just the deepest? Narky Blert (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Welcome to the Teahouse. It's advisable just to add the deepest ones. Adding too many is often considered to be a sign of over-tagging. I'd advise not adding more than two or three per article (at most). --Jakob (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jakec: Thanks! that makes very good sense: only the deepest in any particular field; if a person is notable in more than one field, then the deepest in each. But, looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#People made my brain hurt. Parts of it are an unsorted mish-mash: for example Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#Scientists. Sigh. If I can find the time, I'll try to sort it into a more logical order. Also, a catch-all like {{Scientist-stub}} strikes me as so broad as to be near-useless: I'd guess that all the entries there need restubbing.

A side issue: I'm English, and a Brit. Dad is Scottish, and a Brit. His mother was Irish, and a Brit. I know people who are proudly Welsh, and who are also Brits. Therefore, templates like {{UK-scientist-stub}} and {{England-scientist-stub}} or {{Scotland-scientist-stub}} (and like stubs, and categories) are not always mutually exclusive: Brits should be categorised under their home nation as well as under UK/British, where the possibility exists. This can be a sensitive issue, but I think it's one where WikiBoldness is required. One of ~~England's~~ ~~the United Kingdom's~~ the all-time greatest generals was born in what is now the Republic of Ireland. Narky Blert (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

why was my article speedily deleted?

Hi. I tried to make a page on my most well known invention, the Galvactivator, which was the very first washable, wearable biosensor ever invented. (something one would think would be a good addition to Wikipedia!). I created it as a graduate student at the MIT Media Laboratory in 1998. Since then it has evolved into many other devices. It has an MIT filed patent, it gets almost 17,000 hits, it's been licensed by several companies, it's been shown all over the world, it's in TED talks, it's referenced in many books and articles. I'm trying to record history properly. I'm not sure why it got rejected. Can you answer that?

All the best, Jocelyn Scheirer

98.217.148.159 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Jocelyn, I'm unable to view the content of the article you created, but the log indicates it was deleted because you failed to provide evidence of the invention's importance. Did you supply citations to independent, reliable sources discussing the invention? That's generally one of the main criterion that's used to judge whether something is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. A separate issue in this case is the possible Conflict of interest in your creating a page about your own invention. I suggest visiting Wikipedia:Articles for creation for advice on how to create a page where you have a possible conflict of interest. Best of luck! Keihatsu ^talk 18:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The speedy deletion nomination indicates that the reviewer did not see evidence of notability (in the precise Wikipedia sense) of the invention. (Two copies of the article are visible for review in user sandboxes, and Keihatsu is correct in inferring that the article does not contain references on the importance of the invention.) Perhaps it would help if you provided a review of the invention that was published in a reliable source such as a newspaper or trade journal. You say it is referenced in many books and journals. Please provide those references. Also, you have a conflict of interest because you are the inventor. After reworking the article, you should move it to Draft space and submit it for third-party review. Also, in posting this question, you either forgot or failed to log in, because you edited from an IP address rather than as User:Jocelynscheirer. There are advantages to logging in (including the ability to create a new page in Draft space). You probably know about them, because you do have an account. You probably forgot to log in. Please provide secondary sources as to the notability of the invention and resubmit it for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your response.

All the best, Jocelyn

Jocelynscheirer (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

How do I create a contents box for an article?

Hello,

I want to include a content box in a Wiki article on a book publisher. It is that box that often appears at the top of the page on the right-hand side and includes information such as the company name, location, date founded, key people, ect. What steps would I need to take to put that template box into the article?

24.230.84.138 (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It automatically appears when the page has at least four section headings. See more at Help:Section. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I referred to it as the wrong thing. For example, on the Wiki page for Random House, there is a panel on the right side with an image and basic information about Random House, such as its parent company, date founded, founder . . .

What is that box and is there a way I can include one like that to an article?

Thanks,

Sue

24.230.84.138 (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sue. That is called an "infobox", and you can learn all about them at Help:Infobox. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, I thought of the table of contents but your description did show you were talking about an infobox. A book publisher can use {{Infobox publisher}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of this forum

I have really bad body odour and i'm not sure how to get rid of it. What are your suggestions?

(

123cartman (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello 123cartman. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing the Wikipedia, it is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Answer shamelessly copied from Roger (Dodger67)'s further down the page. w.carter-Talk 13:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Article declined, not sure how I can make it better - help!

Hi

I recently created an article for the website 'Soundblab' but it was rejected. I've been advised to add citations. The trouble is I'm not sure where to add them.

I'll be honest, I find the wikipedia editing experience really confusing, I'm guessing they do this to stop everyone posting random nonsense.

I'd also like to get one of the little info boxes down the right hand side.

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks Alex

DeLarge2071 (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @DeLarge2071:. I suggest you have a look at guidelines on reliable sources, and the notability guidelines, particularly as regards organisations and companies. WP:Referencing for beginners will help with citations needed to create a fully-fledged Wikipedia article. LS1979 (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

How to move a page from a draft namespace into my userspace?

When my AFC was declined the contents of the sandbox was put into the draft namespace. A sentence placed at the top of the article offered me two alternatives. This sandbox is in the Draft namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template. I would like to retain a copy of the sandbox in my user space just as it was before the submission. How do I move the page from the draft namespace back into my Userspace? Thank you. Janvermont (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Janvermont. I see you copied the rendered page to User:Janvermont/submission. That loses all the formatting so don't do that. Either move the page (see Wikipedia:Moving a page) or click edit and copy the source of the page. If you copy the source then you normally have to credit the source page (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia), but if you are the only contributor to the copied content then you don't have to give credit. If you plan to submit the page again then please move the whole page and keep the review at the top to show the submission history. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

How to?

How can I reduce the size of the logo in this infobox? [2] — Keithbob • Talk • 15:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There are probably better ways to do it, I'm just a duffer when it comes to images but one way is to include a size when you specify the file for the image in the box. So at the beginning of the infobox use something like:

"{{Infobox library | library_logo = [[File:Ferguson Municipal Public Library logo.jpg|120px]]..."

See my sandbox for an example. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't realize you could use the standard image/file format in the infobox. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Keithbob: The article uses Template:Infobox library so see the documentation there. You can for example write | logo_upright = 0.7. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

my editing was removed, why?

i edited some pages references and when i go back the next day on the pages my editing was removed, it was a minor editing and i got no email or what so ever with the reason of removel of my editing.. anybody here can tell me why it is so? 182.186.15.162 (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The user contribution for your IP address, shows that you have only made one edit - asking the question above. I assume you made your earlier edits on as different IP address, or they were not saved.
Please let us know which article(s) you edited, and we might be able to help. - Arjayay (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Why was annihilation of my edits so harsh?

I edited a controversial (rejection of jesus) page for the first time in my week-long career, adding relevant and interesting sections, and new material to sections that were just stubs. Much of the page was poorly written and contained irrelevant and incorrect data, and my edited version was seriously quite a good read. I hadn't got around to adding citations to scholars or secondary sources, I had just added biblical quotes, and I had left all citations in that were there. I turned around and the whole lot had been trashed. Isn't there some kind of policy of being courteous at least, or even perhaps helping to find appropriate citations, as I do when I am editing, instead of just destroying. My work might have inspired another reader to investigate further. I understood the policy of citations was that they had to be there in the case of a probable challenge but not where material was already widely accepted. Also the issue of common-sense applies here; most of what I wrote couldn't be contested by scholars, let alone deletion experts, as it involved obvious contradictions. I feel I've been the victim of extreme unfriendliness and mindless officiousness.WeAreHe (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Before editing controversial pages, please read Talkpage first. Usually, these pages have a long time discussio, edit wars and hard konsensus, and you shouln't edit it without talking with other editors. Cheers, Ochilov (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry you ran into such difficulties so early. I've been editing for years, and my most usual method of handling hot topics is just to stay away from them. However, someone has to handle them, and after more experience with cooler topics you might become one of those who are able to do the hot ones well. Hot topics need much discussion in the article's discussion page. Experienced editors are careful to prepare our citations beforehand for such articles, and not to assume our fellow industrious editors will agree with us on what points are obvious and what sense is common. This of course means much extra work to make even a small amount of progress, and I'm among the editors who prefer to work in areas where productive changes are easier. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WeAreHe (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, WeAreHe. You knew the article was controversial, but perhaps you did not know that it is not acceptable to add major chunks of content to a religious article cited to the New Testament. The Bible is a primary source and we need secondary sources like works by widely respected scholars. Maybe your additions are "widely accepted" among people you know, but they are not widely accepted among Jews, Muslims and atheists. And your edits were challenged. The next step is to assume that the other editors are acting in good faith, as they clearly are, and discuss your proposed edits on the talk page, citing reliable secondary sources. Using hyperbolic language about the routine, reasonable and policy compliant actions of other editors is not advisable. You have been edit warring to push your changes into the article without consensus. That is not permitted and may well lead to your account being blocked. Please de-escalate and discuss things in a collaborative fashion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually the talk page seemed dead, and the article too, Ochilov, but cheers for the advice.WeAreHe (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

And thank you jim.henderson also, Very good advice! I had already decided to stay away from it.WeAreHe (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

how to format an author's bibliography or list of works?

Hello everyone! For poets/writers/etc how should we format their list of works on their wikipedia pages? I've seen Chicago, MLA, APA--you name it. For example, compare: Alice Munro's works section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Munro#Works) to Lorrie Moore's bibliography section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorrie_Moore#Bibliography). What is the standard? Is it listed somewhere already?

Thank you! Internatwave (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no standard at all, but it will be good, if you write year and ISBN there. Ochilov (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Internatwave welcome to the teahouse. Have you taken a look here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Literature? I haven't looked at the literature project page but perhaps they have some guidelines or a place to ask specific questions pertaining to the format. A couple other suggestions: if you are looking to edit an existing article about a poet it's probably a good idea to stick with whatever format is there... unless there is a really compelling reason to change. And of course if the article exists already post a comment on the talk page before making any serious changes to the structure of the article. Also, one thing I do when I'm wondering about how to format things and there is no standard is to find a similar topic that is very well known and see how that article is structured. So in this case I might try looking at some very famous poet like Robert Frost or Emily Dickinson; or other articles on very famous poets that are highly rated articles; and use those as a model. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Personally when I'm doing bibliographies I find the ISBN number from the internet (good places to get them are OCLC WorldCat, Google books or Amazon books). I then copy and and paste the ISBN number into Special:BookSources, click on "5. Bibliographical information" in the table of contents, and then click on "Bibliographical Information on OttoBib (Wikipedia)". This opens a new tab with Wikipedia's way of formatting books shown here. I also like to use author-link when quoting a book on a non-biography article or to link to a second author Template:Cite book#Authors. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

responding to your message

Thank you for reaching out in regards to the article we submitted.

I believe we were rejected because our summary was blank. So we added a short summary and resubmitted.

The article was for 'WeRdoZe'

Thanks Dmediagroup (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Your article was likely rejected because of notability.[3]. Bromley86 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Dmediagroup. I am jumping to some conclusions here, so pardon me if my guesses are wrong; but I suspect that you are from a company representing one or more artists, and are trying to create articles about them for publicity. If that is right, please be aware that this is a purpose which is fundamentally inconsistent with the purposes of Wikipedia: Promotion of any kind is forbidden, and all articles are required to be based almost entirely on material in reliable published sources unconnected with the subject; for which reason, people with a strong connection with a subject are strongly discouraged from writing or editing articles about the subject.

There is also a prohibition on multiple people using an account, and on account names which suggest that they represent an organisation.

If, reading this, you wish to proceed with this article, I suggest that you:

Abandon the account Dmediagroup and each of you create a personal account which does not suggest it is representing an organisation (I use my real name for my account, but you are free to use any name that complies with our policy on usernames).
Read our policy on editing with a conflict of interest.
Find reliable sources, unconnected with the artist which have written at length about the artist. If you cannot find these, then the artist fails the criteria for notability, and no article about them will be accepted at present, however it is written.
Write the article entirely from those sources, citing them (see referencing for beginners. Uncontroversial factual information such as places and dates may come from a non-independent source such as your website or the artist's website, but must still be referenced. Anything else must come from independent sources.)
Write in a neutral encyclopaedic way, without any marketing speak. Avoid any evaluations, conclusions, comparisons, motivations unless they are directly taken from cited independent sources. (So you may quote a review which says "He is a ground-breaking performer", but you may not say this unless you are citing such an independent source.
Be aware that the article once written (even before it has been reviewed) is not yours, and you do not have control over its contents. If another editor inserts properly sourced material which you would prefer did not appear, you may not have it removed (you may argue the case, disclosing your conflict of interest, but consensus will win, not necessarily you).

Then submit it for review again.

Alternatively, you might decide to try editing articles where you do not have a conflict of interest.

Good luck. --ColinFine (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

How can I join the Teahouse?

I was sent an automatic message from a "robot" to join the teahouse. It seems like a great place to learn about editing and ways to improve wikipedia articles. Is this a legitimate offer for me to join? If so, how can I help?NorthernBear10 (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, NorthernBear10, welcome! All you really have to do is ask questions here, that's it. You can write a bit about yourself by clicking the "Guest profiles" link at the top, but that's completely optional. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and a welcome from me as well. Since you are new here this is a great place to just hang out and read Q&A's from other editors and learn from them as well as ask anything about editing that you want to know. You can also join in the discussions if there is something you want to add or ask a bit more about. I have left you some tips and links at your talk page that you might find useful. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 20:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, NorthernBear10. Just to clarify the answer to your original question, there is no actual process to "join" the Teahouse. It is not an official thing that you "join"; just come by to read, learn and ask questions when you wish. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Disappearance of two tools.

I installed two tools for copyediting, which is AutoEd and Peer Reviewer. They suddenly disappeared. I copied the scripts to my vector.js, but nothing appeared. Can anyone tell me what happened? SparrowHK (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to copy it to coommons.js, not to vector Ochilov (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh ok. Thanks

SparrowHK (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

What external links can I use?

Hi, I've started my account a few days ago and I'm trying to edit a post and to add external links. I've read Wikipedia:External links and I have some questions: 1. Can I link to pages like www.travelandleisure.com, www.wtmlondon.com, truenomads.com, www.cntraveler.com, www.wherecoolthingshappen.com? 2. Can I link to blogs that are not mine, but are relevant for my content? 3. Can I link to NGOs?

TRavelRO 08:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreea Rolandia (talk • contribs)

Yes, yes and yes. Ochilov (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! GoGirl 09:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreea Rolandia (talk • contribs)

Um, actually the correct answers are "it depends (but probably no), no, and it depends (but possibly yes)." Per WP:EL, sites like those you mention might be permissable if and only if they provide additional information that is not contained within the article - you'd have to assess these on a case by case basis. Blogs - yours or anyone elses - are not allowed, unless they are written by a recognised authority ("recognised" means, as a bare minimum, that the blog's writer has a Wikipedia article about them and is primarily noted for the subject of their blog). NGO webpages would again need to provide additional material that was relevent to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. I would suggest that you discuss the exact links you propose at the External Links noticeboard, where experienced users can assess them against the external links policy. As a rule of thumb, though, if you're not familiar with the EL policy you should avoid linking to anything other than the official website of the subject. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There are great inputs. Thanks! GoGirl 11:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreea Rolandia (talk • contribs)

Creation of an article for our company

Dear helpdesk,

I created an article for our company, i received the following message from the reviewer:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Can you help me in this matter? If needed, i can send you the text of the article.

regards, EHDSI EH (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability essentially means that the company has to have been noticed by reliable sources. So you need to find mentions in media (i.e. book/news outlets, and not just press releases) to establish whether there should be an article on the company. There are many companies out there, but not all are notable enough to have an entry in an encyclopaedia. ColinFine has recently answered a similar question (it's about a band, but the principles are exactly the same) here if you need more detail. Bromley86 (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I should have said, seeing as we're talking about a German company, that the sources don't have to be in English. Bromley86 (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the teahouse. Also, creating an article for your own company may create a conflict of interest. Even if the compnay is notable you have to maintain neutral point of view. Also do not use Wikipedia for advertising purposes. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

How to include a new page into the mainspace

Dear friends,

i've created the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sterndmitri/TheChurchOfNativity, it is approved and I want to include it into the mainspace. Couldn't you help me.

I'll be eternally indebted, if you'll make some notes about this for me to let me do it on my own next time. Sterndmitri (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Sterndmitri I added a sandbox template to the beginning of your draft article. The appropriate code is: "{{User sandbox}} " It's a good idea to leave that at the top of your sandbox article or other user pages. That way if someone stumbles across the page they know it's not part of user space. You could now just click that button that is there due to the code I added to move your article into the main space but I STRONGLY urge you NOT to do that yet. Your article is not ready for it yet. If you submit the article as it is it will be rejected because you have no references. I encourage you to read up on what makes a good Wikipedia article, here are some good places to start: wp:42 wp:references for beginners wp:five pillars You need to document every important fact in an article with a good wp:reference. Actually, my advice is to forget about creating a new article for now. Get some experience editing existing articles first. That way you can learn about wikipedia:policies and about the basics of how to edit. Once you have some experience it will be much easier to create a new article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Page India- no space for India's official language

India's official languages are Hindi and English as per India's constitution. We respect India's constitution as it is what is driving an otherwise uncontrollable democracy of more than 125 billion people. But, the Hindi words "Bharat Ganrajya" for Republic of India are not being written in Hindi as the wikipedian editors are arguing (on the talk page) that it'd be neglecting other hundreds of languages to do so. however, Hindi represents India greatly and as I said, is one of the two national languages. I feel it's time that logic wins. Thanks. please send link to my talk page when anyone answers as Teahouse has so many questions and it gets very difficult to spot my own. Thanks again. Mousanonyy (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mousanonyy, Welcome to the Teahouse. I think you've misunderstood the purpose of Teahouse. Your question is unclear so I'm assuming this has to do something with the article India. Also we only answer questions about editing Wikipedia. So it'd better if you clarify your question further.--Chamith (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I just thought Tea House was a place for new users to ask for information about a problem they're facing on wiki. My question remains the same though, as I mentioned above. If it doesn't come under the domain of Tea House, could you tell me whre to address my problem? Mousanonyy (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If you read the FAQs at the top of the talkpage, you'll see that the very first one addresses this issue. The discussion it links to, in which the Wikipedia community decided not to use native languages in the lead sections of articles relating to India, is here. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you are objecting to the English Wikipedia's policy of WP:INDICSCRIPT which precludes the use of any Indic scripts in the lead of any article. This evolved after very long arguments, for reasons including accessibility by disabled people using text readers, as well as the problems of numerous scripts, and is not going to suddenly change.
Each language's Wikipedia decides its own rules; I note that the Devanagari article does not include "India" in Roman (English) script in their lead either. - Arjayay (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yunshui, From France, Italy to many many other countries, NATIVE SCRIPTS ARE BEING USED! That's what makes this issue look unfair for India. Arjayay, that discussion can start over again, it's not engraved on stone! Why should Indic languages be the only ones facing this!? Mousanonyy (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Mousanonyy, you're right the issue isn't engraved in stone and there is nothing stops it being rediscussed. If you want to start a fresh RFC at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics please do so but I'd suggest you read the previous RFC carefully first and think how you would address the opposing points likely to be raised. You also need to realise that in the event on no clear consensus for change coming out of the discussion then the status quo would remain. Nthep (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's such a relief. Thank you so much Nthep for trying to look at the other side of the argument. :) Mousanonyy (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I knew India was growing fast but WOW! Should that in fact be 1.25 billion?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

declined article submission has disappeared

I submitted an article about a notable person (Robert J Emery), which was declined for "copyright violations" a few days ago. I wanted to edit the article to ensure that it complied with the rules, but now the article has disappeared. Can you help me find it? It is no longer linked under my contributions page and is not listed on the declined articles for creation page. Thx Scottcmu (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Scottcmu: Welcome to the Teahouse! Copyrighted material is removed immediately from Wikipedia; in your case, Draft:Robert J. Emery was deleted as it included content that was copied and pasted from this source. Edits made to deleted pages don't show up in your contributions list, which is why you can't find it. Since it was a copyright violation, unfortunately there's no way that the content will be restored.

Articles on Wikipedia need to be written entirely in your own words, using information from a variety of reliable sources. Copying and pasting content is almost never allowed, and copied-and-pasted content rarely meets the proper tone for a neutral encyclopedia anyway. If you'd like to have another go at it, I'm afraid you'll have to start from scratch. This is probably a good thing, however, is it will allow you to properly analyze and pull information from multiple sources, in your own words. Be sure to also avoid close paraphrasing, which is also a common problem. Hope this helps! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability/appropriateness of multiple related articles

Hello~ I have a couple of related issues, both dealing with an explosion of articles on a topic that's currently trendy, is of non-English-language origin (and has virtually no independent English-language coverage), and which has a very young fanbase. Articles have been created for absurd details of fans' favorite topics, and even articles for subjects that reasonably pass notability requirements are extremely long and detailed, surpassing in quality/quantity articles for far, far, far more notable subjects. Many of these articles don't even have articles on the Wikipedia of the subjects' home country. I don't know how to address this. Problems I see with article-specific discussions: 1) Talk page discussion attempts are ignored so far; 2) Anyone who'd take part in a talk page discussion is one of the rabid fanatics who wrote the articles (the subjects are very niche-ish, with anyone outside fandom unlikely to ever visit) - how to get opinions of multiple unbiased editors?; 3) Working group to which articles belong seems dead (?); 4) Seems inefficient to have the same discussion multiple times on dozens of pages. Where/how is it appropriate to address this type of situation? Can experienced editors sweep in and fix things in bulk without a billion individual discussions? I feel at a loss, but seeing this all the time is making me beyond annoyed and I can't fathom donating to Wikipedia under these circumstances.

Second related problem: The way the government and media work in the home country leads to heavy (but "verifiable") over-exaggeration of these subjects' notability and accomplishments, and results in Wikipedia articles full of informatoin that has been "reliably" published but never fact-checked. Hence, Wikipedia has become, in effect, a PR tool for these subjects. I know information on Wikipedia need not be true, merely verifiable, but when an entire country's media is heavily biased and prints flattering, unverified "facts" for the express purpose of promoting the country abroad, what is to be done?

Any guidance would be appreciated. Thank you Shinyang-i (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, @Shinyang-i: - thanks for the heads-up. Could you give us some examples? That would help assess the problem, and maybe experienced, neutral editors can prune/merge the articles if required. LS1979 (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my slow reply. The subject area in question is Kpop. It's really hard to explain everything here, but I'll try to give some examples. Issue #1: exaggeration of notability/over-flattering articles: There is very little original English-language media about kpop (and much of what does exist was sponsored by the Korean government); it's nearly all just translations of articles from Korean media, of which there are zillions. Korean media prints multiple articles about every single episode of every music and variety show, many of which get translated into English, which (in my opinion) exaggerates the notability of many artists to an outsider. It doesn't matter if they are famous or not; almost every kpop artist gets to be on Korean music shows and therefore has tons of articles written about it. Additionally, it is illegal to say anything bad about people in Korea, to say anything that could damage their reputation, true or not. This applies to both fact and opinion (for the latter, that means no negative reviews of albums, for instance; you can only say it's great). Therefore, every article says wonderful things about every artist, every performance, every dance move they make, etc. People can be sued for saying otherwise. Additionally, Facts are rarely checked by the media; if a company says 500 million people came to their artist's last concert, the media simply prints it, and then foreign media then repeats it, even if only 500 people actually showed up. So, Wikipedia articles quoting this stuff wind up just being mouthpieces for these Korean companies. The Korean government is complicit in this, as they invest heavily in the spread of kpop internationally. You won't find any articles in the media about it because - obviously - it's illegal in Korea to publish them. So this all leads to Wikipedia articles that are so exaggerated in terms of accomplishment and importance of these artists that the articles are little more than PR tools for the management companies. This is all exacerbated by the fact that not all Korean articles about kpop get translated to English; only the ones that say things the fans like. Articles that may be less flattering or report bad news rarely get translated. Thus the body of information from which most Wikipedia editors work is inherently biased, leading to biased Wikipedia articles. :/ I really don't know how to fix this issue.

Issue #2: Out-of-control fankid behavior. Example: On many pages, the "also known as" fields in the infoboxes list tons of nicknames (many fan-given) on biographical pages of artists. Can they all just be deleted or does a discussion have to happen for each article? Another example, there's a Korean variety show called "We Got Married," which has its own article and a "season X of" series of articles. The problem comes in where a fan has gone and made pages for her favorite couples on the show, and "season X of" articles for each couple as well. There are infoboxes for the couples that link back to the music groups each member of the couple is in, what management company they're under, etc. It's just absurd. (Example: YongSeo) There are no corresponding articles for this kind of stuff on the Korean Wikipedia. Again, does every example of this level of inappropriateness have to be discussed individually? Where would one go to in order to have an unbiased discussion with experienced editors? Really, it would be nice to discuss these one-on-one somewhere else besides this page, but I don't know where to go and I don't like fighting with people. :( Ugh, I feel like I'm explaining poorly. However, any advice would be appreciated. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't get my references to work how do I do that?

I am trying to write an article but even though I put the cite it won't show up at the bottom or at all.. am I doing it right? Ksparks09 (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey there @Ksparks09: I assume you're talking about User:Ksparks09/sandbox? If so, you were on the right track. Problem was that you appeared to place one reference (<ref>...</ref>) inside of another. You need to also place {{reflist}} in the 'References' section; this marks where you footnotes will appear. I have made both these fixes with this edit, if you'd like to check it out and see what I did. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

How do I add a picture to my sandbox?

How do I add a picture to my sandbox?Ksparks09 (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ksparks09: What type of picture? Non-free pictures are not allowed in sandboxes. For other types, please use the File Upload Wizard. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

help!

Can you please help me with List of Pulitzer Prize Winners?SonictheHedgehog99 (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Can you be more specific? What kind of help do you need? Vanjagenije (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you see the replies at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 15#List of Pulitzer Prize winners? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@SonictheHedgehog99: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'll be glad to help you if you specify what you need help with a bit more; it's a bit vague right now. Do you need help with anything else besides this? -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 06:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse Host left Wikipedia

Hello, fellow hosts. I noticed that in the Host profile of the Teahouse, I saw NickGibson3900 being a host. However, he had left Wikipedia. Do we leave his profile there or remove it? DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Nahnah4. As that editor has indisputably departed the encyclopedia, I think it is fine to remove the profile. That editor, to the best of my knowledge, was never very active here. Hopefully, the person behind that account will deal with their issues, and make a productive fresh start to Wikipedia editing some time in the future. Thanks for asking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I removed it, thanks. It's quite sad that he had to leave though, he was a friendly one. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 07:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

How do i make my page live?

How do i make my page live??KriGod110 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi KriGod110 and welcome to the Teahouse! In future please don't create articles in the Wikipedia: space. Your article is now at Draft:Mal Z. Lawerence. Please wait for someone to review it. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 20:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

But you've now moved it to Draft:KriGod110, KriGod110, which is certainly the wrong place for it. It should be at Draft:Mal Z. Lawrence (note the spelling - there's only two 'e's in Lawrence). If it passes review, then the reviewer will move it to the right place in main space (without a prefix). --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@KriGod110: Wrong place, as Colin says. I've corrected the spelling so the article is now at Draft:Mal Z. Lawrence. It's also protected so that only admins can move it. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

about the citation

Hi, I have another question. In the article that I am writing in my Sandbox, I wrote the track listings, album information, and personnel from the liner note of that album I bought. Do I have to make a citation about those in references? Myeonghanyu (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, create a citation with the album liner notes as the source. WP:CITE.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a good ideaSonictheHedgehog99 (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Myeonghanyu. Yes, almost all information in an article must be cited. The information you have mentioned, being uncontroversial factual information, is the kind of thing that may be cited to a non-independent source such as the album's liner (though not all the information there is necessarily appropriate for the Wikipedia article). But please be aware that most of the article must be based on published reliable sources that are independent of the artist, producer and record company. If you can't find such sources, then the album is probably not yet notable and no article about it will be accepted however it is written. --ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

how to write a aticle

i am trying to write an article but i am confusedAmber rayaz (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Amber rayaz Welcome to the teahouse. First, my suggestion is to get some experience editing existing articles before you try to create a new one. You can find articles to edit here: Wikipedia:Community_portal scroll down to where it says "Help Out" and you will see lots of examples of existing articles that need editing and there are even links that say "Learn how" that give you tips about how to edit each group of articles (e.g., how to add references, do basic editing, etc.). However, I know lots of new editors have a specific idea for a new article and if you want to work on that, that is fine as well. First, you need to make sure your subject is wikipedia:notable Not all topics merit a Wikipedia article. You can determine if your subject is wp:notable by finding good wp:references that mention it. Here is a good overview of what makes a good Wikipedia article: wp:42 here are the "five pillars" for a good Wikipedia article: wp:five pillars I suggest you read all the articles I linked from above and then come back if you have more questions. You can reply back here in the teahouse or on my talk page if you want. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixing Grammar

Although I did this, How do you fix grammar? Thelimiter (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can edit a WP article. Just click on the Edit This Page tab and make spelling or grammar corrections as needed. More information on how to edit an article can be found here at WP:Introduction.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Thelimiter, and welcome to the Teahouse. Hopefully you get the answers that you need and if not, please come back and leave another comment. There is a group of Wikipedias who enjoy proofreading articles and making corrections to the grammar in these articles. They also look for spelling mistakes and correct references and citations. You can find them here: WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. When you go to this page on Wikipedia, you scroll down to the bottom of the page and leave your question there. These editors are very good at helping you polish an article. Fortunately for me I have a few of them following me around and cleaning up all my mistakes. I don't know what I would do without them.

Bfpage |leave a message 17:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"List of XXXX people"

Specifically on college pages, it links to a list of "alumni, faculty, and former faculty." What distinguishes who is allowed to be placed on this list?Arkame (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Arkame: good question. In most cases, the criterion is that Wikipedia has an article about the people. Arguably, if Wikipedia could have an article about them (i.e. they meet the notability criteria, then they could be put on the list too. But people on the list whose names are not wikilinked will generally get removed. --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Only 'notable' people they can go on the list. One general rule of thumb is do they have a WP article? If they don't it doesn't rule them out but it gives a general indication that they may not be notable per WP:Notability (people).-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The specific guidance is at WP:ALUMNI, but I would draw your attention to 2 points, which often cause problems:-

You should include all notable alumni, "regardless of how much time they have spent on a school roll, from one day to several years, and whether or not they graduated."
Their attendance at the college, must be verifiable, "a biography page in Wikipedia that does not provide a source cannot be used as a reference" - Arjayay (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

First Editing/Article Feedback

Hello, I am a new editor who recently expanded a stub for my first major editing task. The page is called LYFE Kitchen and I would appreciate some feedback on it. Is it a suitable summary or should I have added more? Are there any superfluous parts? What is strong and what needs to be improved? Most importantly, where can I go from here? Any tips would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Sofamiredo (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sofamiredo. I'll leave some comments over on the article's Talk page. Bromley86 (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Sofamiredo. It looks like to me that you are off to a good start in your editing efforts. It can be very difficult at first to learn the wiki markup language. At least that is how it was for me. You are wise to start with editing a stub before making any major, substantial edits. There are a couple of ways to become more involved with editing on Wikipedia. First, you might want to find an article which interests you. At that point, you may want to check the spelling and/or grammar. You might want to see if some of the statements made in the article need someone like you to find references for the statements. Happy editing and thank you for participating.

Bfpage |leave a message 18:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)