Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 319

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 315←Archive 317Archive 318Archive 319Archive 320Archive 321→Archive 325

reply to george caliburn

hi george

im a little out of my depth ivee submitted 6 times and it even though it complies and uses similar pages as a template to ensure compliance it just remains a draft unpublished page

ive read all the wiki help pages but need to speak to someone rather than be led by generalisations from a generic help page

regards RachaelRachael reiko murakami (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rachael. The draft at Draft:Shotokan Karate Union seems to have been declined only once, so I don't know where your 6 submissions were. The reason for the draft being declined was given on the draft page, but you removed that feedback. I have added it back in, as previous feedback doesn't get removed until the draft is accepted and published. The feedback is useful not only to you but also to future reviewers. I notice that your draft has no inline citations, so please read about giving references to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


yes david i have read the links you supplied and read everything everyone has mentioned to me and i have indeed resubmitted it again after watching the video i think i have solved the problem by using the cite which are all from outside sources

i dont wish to upset anyone as i feel i am following instructions to the best of my ability

regards rachael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachael reiko murakami (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Rachael reiko murakami, don't worry about upsetting anyone here at the Teahouse by asking a lot of questions. The editors here all thrive on that sort of thing, and it's great to see a new editor persisting and a new draft being improved. I have a couple of suggestions for improvements: (1) There are a lot of external links in the body of the article, and this is not allowed in Wikipedia articles; it is considered a form of advertising. You can make a section at the bottom called "External links" and add just a few of the most relevant ones there in a list. (2) You have a lot of references to magazines; this is fine, but each reference should be to a particular article in the magazine that verifies the information in the article. Instead you have a long list of issues and pages all in one reference. Surely all of these wouldn't have the same facts, unless they were copies of an advertisement, which isn't appropriate. Here's an article, Isao Obata, that has some magazine references that you can look at.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply for Anne Delong

At last another female ! Wow there was a popup notice when i logged in saying that there are so few women editors on wiki. well after my current experience thus far i can believe it. so im really glad to get help from another woman.

anyhow, ive taken your advice and addressed the issue of external links and ive removed them ive just left the wiki links in there.

I really didnt have a clue how to do anything on here and apparently still dont. so it has all been something of a shock and a massive learning curve for me. Ive also addressed your second point and ive reduced them and ive specified the articles too, i must say it has cleaned it up and made it much more readable. many thanks for that and you managed do it without overloading an already overloaded individual with "go to here and read this" type of instruction. i know the articles are designed to be helpful but im suffering with overload right now and its getting all too much for me so i do appreciate your input very much as it was exactly what i needed right now. I feel if someone else helpfully comments and has a different approach point of view or advice from the last person that will set me off in a new direction again and i will explode like that character at the airport in total recall. If the page gets rejected again can i ask you to help me redo it, as im not coping very well with it right now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachael reiko murakami (talk • contribs) 10:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Rachael reiko murakami, I will help. Just leave a message on my talk page. I can't do it all for you, though, because I know nothing at all about Karate. By the way, there are more women here than you think; some of them just aren't saying.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe I made a formatting error on my Wikipedia template.JBLongUSA (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am new to editing on Wikipedia, and believe I made an error on my reference section of a template of a page I am creating. In the reference section, the hyperlink for "1" in on the line above the reference. Here is the code.

References

References

Did I edit it wrong (not sure if that is how it's supposed to look). Any help would be appreciated. JBLongUSA (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, JBLongUSA, and welcome to the TeaHouse. I am going to guess that the article you are having the trouble with was Draft:Tyler Hadley, and I think that is now fixed up. There were two problems hitting it. The first one has bitten me more times than I care to admit: one of your inline references (the last one) was not closed properly; it was missing the "<" before the "/ref". The effect of this is that Wikipedia's processor treats everything after that as a continuation of the Reference, and it all goes wrong. The second thing is that you don't need to list all the references at the end. Having put them all at the appropriate places in the text, the Ref list gets built automatically when you put the {{Reflist}} template at the end. Take a look at what I did on the article and I hope it makes sense ... if not, feel free to ask back here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rich, Nathaniel "Tyler Hadley's Killer Party" RollingStone.com 18 December, 2013

File redirect problem

Hi, Shannon County was renamed Oglala Lakota County however this broke the Template:Infobox U.S. county map because it uses a built up file name "Map of {{{state}}} highlighting {{{county}}}.svg". I tried adding a redirect File:Map of South Dakota highlighting Oglala Lakota County.svg but it does not work? I've seen redirected images before, and I can't work out why this isn't working (just shows as a blue-linked image). Any ideas? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi KylieTastic. The file is at commons:File:Map of South Dakota highlighting Shannon County.svg so the file redirect also has to be at Commons to work. I got edit conflicted when I tried to create the Commons redirect. User:AxG uploaded a copy of the file instead. That also works. I have deleted the non-working redirect at the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I added a recent reference and copy edited the article, KylieTastic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

First time contributor here, trying to add a article on a famous artists here in marin county, having issues with article being deleted.. help

the page is up here= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvatore_Giacona

can someone have a look and let me know whats wrong? I've tried everything to make sure the references were satisfied, but nothing seems to satisfy your bots/admins.. HELP!

Rawheaven (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rawheaven. Your references are presented in a sketchy fashion, and I highly recommend that you follow the procedures described in Referencing for beginners. Please be sure that every assertion in the article is backed up by a statement in a reliable source. You have included an excessive number of red links in the article, including links to obscure artistic genres. I recommend that you trim them back. Familiarize yourself with our notability guideline for artists, and include well-referenced information in the article showing that this artist complies. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Several of your external links do not even mention Giacona, and accordingly should be removed from the article. The article in the Marin Independent Journal includes only a single sentence about Giacona. That is what we call a "passing mention" which is not useful for establishing notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I cleaned up a couple of the red links, but that does not address the major issue, which Cullen328 points out. The article needs to establish his notability by referring to what reliable, independent sources say about him. Instead of generic lists of "references" and "external links", use inline references to show specifically how each one supports the notability of the subject.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Help with other editors

Is there a way of getting an impartial editor to monitor an article? I have been editing the Foie gras article but running into some curious behaviour such as one editor deleting their (inflammatory) remarks on the Talk page, and another editor attacking my editing methods on the Foie gras Talk page and on my own personal Talk page. I am aware of RfC, but this might be very time consuming. Thanks in advance for advice. __DrChrissy (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, DrChrissy. Perhaps Wikipedia:Third opinion is what you are looking for. It's simpler than an RfC. I see a fair amount of good discussion on that talk page, and I applaud your decision to replace the controversial reference with another one. The problem in discussions often comes when one or both parties (1) become more interested in being right than in improving the encyclopedia, and (2) take the discussion in a personal direction instead of concentrating on developing a consensus. A third voice can be helpful in either situation.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice - that's very helpful. Thanks also for your input on my Talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

What does being 'Patrolled' mean?

Hello,

So, I recently got 'patrolled' by a kind fellow,DangerousJXD but I do not know what it is supposed to mean. Can any other kind fellow explain me?

Thank You KomchiLet's talkWhat I have done 09:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lotKomchiLet's talkWhat I have done 11:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Help Creating a new page

Thanks for your time,

I am new here so I don't know what is wrong with this page or how to fix it, Help please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:HJMS

Kanoog (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Kanoog. The reviewer, Onel5969 rejected your draft because part of it was copied from a copyrighted source such as http://hjms.com/HJMS_en/federate/federate0.php?mode=1&sd=5&hj=2. The way to fix it is to rewrite it in your own words. —teb728 t c 08:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
MY page got deleted, that means I lost all that work and must redo everything again from scratch?

Kanoog (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Kanoog. You have suffered the sting of watching your work disappear. It might be helpful to keep a copy of all your draft it's off-line until you know that your work will be staying up on Wikipedia. I'm sorry this has had to happen to you.
  Bfpage |leave a message  11:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Kanoog. I'm sorry you had this happen. You could follow what Bfpage says, but actually it's very rare for anything you put into Wikipedia to get deleted entirely: most times it is still there in the history; or if the whole page is deleted as was the case here, you can ask the deleting Administrator to restore it for you to work on. However, when the issue is copyright infringement, material will not be restored, because Wikipedia cannot allow material that infringes copyright to remain, even in a draft page. RHaworth who deleted the page, might be willing to restore part of the material or send it to you, if they judge that there is something worth saving besides the copyright material. --ColinFine (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Create a page

Hello I would like to know if u guys would be willing to create a page for an author actor and rapper ladell parks Someone been pretending to be him and try'd over and over to create a page about him and failed but if you guys google him or whatever you'll notice he's quite famous he has a new album coming out some time next month but it's also available for pre order now on itunes & google play — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatlake19 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Thegreatlake19, and welcome to the Teahouse. You might find somebody here willing to take that up, but if not, asking at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Musicians might find more people with an interest that way. Either way, you can improve the chances of finding somebody willing to work on it if you do some of the legwork yourself. Wikipedia has criteria about whether there can be an article about somebody: "quite famous" doesn't hack it: what we need is that somebody has already written substantial articles about him in reliable sources such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers. Can you find a couple of articles about him, in major newspapers or magazines? These need not to be blogs or social media, not anything coming from him or his agents or publishers, not iMDB, not just listings or reprints of press releases, but articles that somebody unconnected with him has written about him and published. If you can find a couple of these, there is a good chance somebody might be willing to pick up your request; if you can't, then there is probably no point in anybody spending any time on in it at the moment (maybe next year!). --ColinFine (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

New Article, Sandbox

Hi, I want to create some new articles, but a sandbox already exists of those articles. For example, for one article that I had planned to do---Casey Cavert, I came across a sandbox of that article. Do I need to ask permission from the sandbox user if I can create the article (my own version, not straight from their sandbox) or can I simply upload my article without asking? Also, once I've created my article, can I ask the sandbox user for help or if they are willing to upload some of their information into my article (if I feel the article needs help in certain areas)? Kinfoll1993 (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC).

Hello, Kinfoll1993. I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to: there was a very short article on Casey Calvert, which was converted in 2006 into a redirect to a section of Hawthorne Heights. If you want to write a new article on the subject you are welcome to try, and do not need to ask anybody's permission. (Before you do so, I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Calvert, to understand why it was converted last time, and consider in that light whether there are enough sources to justify a separate article; you may need to look at your first article as well, if you're not clear what I mean by 'sources').
If you do decide to go ahead, eventually your new article will have to replace the redirect; but I suggest you don't worry about that at present. Develop your new article in draft space (I suggest using the article wizard and when your draft is accepted, the accepting reviewer will sort out putting it in the right place.

Thanks, but what about for other articles? I mean in general, if there is already a sandbox about an article that I want to create, can I still write the page for that article or do I need to ask the user of the sandbox before I create the page? And when mentioning a sandbox for Casey Calvert, I meant someone made a sandbox for Casey Calvert (adult actress), not the band leader. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kinfoll1993. You never need permission from anybody to create an article, (though of course if your attempt violates one of Wikipedia's principles, eg if it were a copyright violation or a personal attack, it would get deleted). If you want to work on a draft that somebody else has created, whether in a user sandbox of theirs or in Draft: space, it would be usual to ask them first, though there's no formal rule that you need their agreement. If the issue concerns a draft article for a different subject with the same name, the name clash will only become an issue when the second one is accepted and moved into article space; in which case normally the accepting reviewer will sort out how to handle the name clash. --ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Need help with tables/rowspan

I am trying to add a column for "OECD Secretary General" to the table on United States Ambassador to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Since the first Secretary General I want to add, Thorkil Kristensen, served through the first 3.5 ambassadors, I wanted to make the rowspan=2 for the first four ambassadors to I could add the second Secretary General in the middle of the fourth ambassador. However, when I change the rowspan to 2 for the first ambassador, the table pushes the second ambassador to the right of the new column, creating a new set of four columns (without a header row, of course). What am I doing wrong with rowspan? Please help/advise. Yomybrotha (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Rowspan can be a pain to work with. I will give it a go. The first three don't need rowspan=2 when only the fourth is split. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Yomybrotha welcome to the Teahouse. Can you please clarify what you meant by "I wanted to make the rowspan=2 for the first four ambassadors to I could add the second Secretary General in the middle of the fourth ambassador." It easier if you could tell me whether you want to add another row for all first 4 ambassadors or just 4th ambassador. Anyhow assuming that you only want to add another entry between 4th and 5th entries I'll add a blank row in between those two. Note that you can do the same for other entries by using the same code. Cheers--Chamith (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind, PrimeHunter fixed it before me.--Chamith (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Yomybrotha: Is [1] OK? David Laurence Aaron has "Unknown" as end and I don't know know whether he should go into Donald Johnston who started 06/1996 according to [2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow! That's wonderful! Thank you very much! What was I doing wrong? Yomybrotha (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Yomybrotha: You wrote rowspan=2 in rows which didn't need it. Help:Table has general help but can be hard to understand. rowspan and colspan are html and not specific to wikitext so maybe a Google search can find better tutorials on using them. I don't know exactly what you wrote but suppose it included:
{|class="wikitable" style="clear:right; text-align:center"
|-
| rowspan="2"|1
| rowspan="2"|[[File:JohnWillsTuthill 1945.jpg|75px]]
| rowspan="2"|[[John W. Tuthill]]
| rowspan="2"|October 4, 1961 – October 22, 1962
| rowspan="2"|Career FSO
|-
| rowspan="2"| 2
| rowspan="2"|[[File:John M. Leddy.jpg|75px]]
| rowspan="2"|[[John M. Leddy]]
| rowspan="2"|October 3, 1962 – June 15, 1965
| rowspan="2"|Political appointee
|}
This renders as:
1 John W. Tuthill October 4, 1961 – October 22, 1962 Career FSO
2 John M. Leddy October 3, 1962 – June 15, 1965 Political appointee
10 columns may seem odd but there is a reason. The 5 cells in row 1 are two rows high. Row 2 wants to start in the middle of those cells. But all 5 of those cells are already part of row 2. The following row 2 cells therefore go to the right of the existing cells, so row 2 gets 10 cells in total. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Uploading an image from Flickr

I found an image of actor Allu Arjun in Flickr here with cc-by-sa 2.0 license. Will it amount to Flickr washing if i upload it? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Pavanjandhyala, doing a quick Google image search on that image turns up lots of hits and the image has no EXIF info so yes in this case it does look like the poster is unlikely to have taken it themselves. So yes I would expect commons to reject it as probable copyright violation by way of "Flickr washing". Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@KylieTastic: But in that case, we can found multiple copies of free files at Wikipedia in Google search, few being published much before the date of the file's publication in Flickr. What to do in such cases? Even the ones who reviewed them did not raise any objections as such. Please do clarify! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Pavanjandhyala, just because other copyrighted images may have got onto commons by successfully "Flickr washing" does not make it right. In this case the Flickr image was uploaded March 13, 2015 but copies can be found with others of the same set claiming to be published Nov 04 2011 here it was also published here in 2011, and the best find is this one which includes the EXIF camera information saying it was taking in 2011 with a Nikon D90 (not 2012 as your Flickr page says) so likely to be the original source. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@KylieTastic: That means i cant upload that file. I understood that not just this, i cant upload any free image here. That means trying to expand an article is just an utter waste of time which implies i should give up my plans. Alright. Thanks for helping me. I give up! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Pavanjandhyala: you can upload free images, its just that they actually have to be free and not stolen. Its usually better to do checks yourself than just upload and have the people at commons check and delete. Unfortunately more fans just repost copyrighted images than take themselves, also if fans take pictures they often unknowing post them copyrighted. Sometimes you can persuade somone on Flickr to change the license. Another option is sometimes you can just ask the person or their management to release some 'free' images. I know the frustration of trying to find 'free' images of some people, even when very famous it can be very hard to locate them. Don't let it get you down, and remember you can still improve the articles your interested with text. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@KylieTastic: It repeatedly proves that getting free images are myths. Thus, i decided that it is better to focus on other articles than that one and leaving it in its present condition. Because no matter how much i develop it and when it passes the result i wanted it to do so, it would be an incomplete one. Instead of leaving my goal incomplete and unfulfilled, i would opt to leave it forever and i am leaving it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Pavanjandhyala. You say that if you can't upload pictures, "trying to expand an article is just an utter waste of time". I very strongly disagree with this. Pictures are a nice-to-have. They are no substitute for the fundamental criterion for quality of an article, which is well-referenced text. We are all volunteers, so we spend the time in the ways we want to (including me); but if collectively we spent half as much time on the hard work of improving the references in existing articles as we do on writing new articles and finding photos (and answering questions on the help desk!) Wikipedia would be immeasurably better. --ColinFine (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@ColinFine: I know that and thanks for bothering to respond on this issue. Still, a strong, beautiful and well constructed villa is lifeless without "nice-to-have" paints. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Article Rejected

My article (Lon Safko) submission was recently rejected because 'references do not adequately show the subject's notability'. I would like someone to help me in this regard in order to improve the referencing. TIA Ayazf (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ayazf. Your article relies far too heavily on sources written by Safko himself. Instead, it should be based primarily on what independent, reliable sources have written about him. Emphasize those and use Safko's own writing only for basic uncontroversial biographical details. You may find Your first article useful in improving your draft. Please read Referencing for beginners and revise your references accordingly. One relatively minor point that jumps out at me is that you consistently refer to the subject as "Lon". According to our Manual of style, we refer to the subject only by their surname. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Any kind of image permission

This image was uploaded in the correct manner, i. e. with evidence of the owner's permission to use it on Wikipedia. This is a cropped version of that image, but is under threat of deletion because of the tag "missing evidence of permission", even though the link of permission is given in it. What do I do? PS: the owner allowed me to use his image but was too lazy to send legal permission. However, I photographed my conversation with him. Will that type of permission suffice? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kailash29792. The photographer must explicitly agree to the terms of an acceptable Creative Commons license allowing anyone to reuse the photo anywhere at any time for any pupose, including commercial uses. That Photobucket screen shot of a Facebook chat does not discuss the license terms at all, and accordingly is of no use for this purpose. The most straightforward solution is for the photographer to upload his own work to Wikimedia Commons himself. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. I hope I can convince him about this. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for coming to the Teahouse, Kailash29792. I got my hand on a sample letter that you can send off to obtain the copyright permissions that you need. I'd like to say that I came up with this myself but I did not I stole it from another editor: fix it up, put in all the right words and send it off.
  Bfpage |leave a message  22:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
So is this how it goes? I edit the information in the mail, then send it to the photographer, asking him to forward it to OTRS? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yup and then please be patient, the OTRS queues are always backlogged.--ukexpat (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I finally got him to send the mail to OTRS. But in the mail is written, "I hereby affirm that I, Vithun Ravindran, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of all the images in my Facebook page (I will not show the URL in this page)." That good, bad or ugly? Because the agreement to apply for all his photos. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

From where to submit an article for review; sub-pages; assistance with regaining sandbox

I am new to Wikipedia. I would be grateful for assistance with 4 questions.

I recently submitted an article for editorial review. I appreciate the fact that the article was accepted and published. I submitted it directly from my sandbox. I hear that's a "no-no", correct? It should be submitted from a sub-page the user creates in Userspace that is devoted to the article? I apologize for having done it incorrectly my first time.

Is there any way to list the subpages in my Userspace? Looking at my watchlist? (I assume they are automatically included there.) What if I delete one from my watchlist, is there an alternative way of listing them? Is changing subpage names and deleting subpages something only Wiki users with more rights can do, or can newbies like me do that?

I think in the process of preparing the article for publication, one of the editors "moved" my sandbox from Userspace to Namespace, and it seems like now I've lost access to my Sandbox for use as a user. In other words, when I go to the URL that should be my sandbox, it redirects me to the article that was created. I look back at the history of edits on the article, and revision #650622612 says that an editor "moved" my sandbox to a "Draft:NameofArticle" path within Wikipedia. Is there any way I can get my sandbox back, i.e. break the connection between my sandbox and the article?

I have a feeling that this teahouse isn't the best place to request the restoration of the sandbox. Is this question more appropriate for the Help Desk?

Thank you in advance for your help.Kekki1978 (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kekki1978 and thanks for your question.
This is a common confusion. If you try to go to your sandbox User:Kekki1978/sandbox you are automatically diverted to Larry Russell (bassist). However, if you look at the second line down on that page (If, and only if, you have come via your sandbox) - you will see (Redirected from User:Kekki1978/sandbox) in blue. Click on that and it will take you back to your sandbox, which you can then edit, to get rid of the redirect. This happens whenever a non-admin moves a page - it leaves a redirect behind. If you are still stuck come back and someone will remove the redirect for you - but doing is often the best way of learning, and remembering. - Arjayay (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Arjaya! Your direction was very helpful. Done.Kekki1978 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
And to answer your question about listing your subpages: if you go to your Contributions (there is a link to that at the top of each page), then scroll right down to the bottom of the Contributions page, you will see a link to "Subpages". That will give you the list you want. Finally, you can't directly delete a page, but if it is one of your own sub-pages you can request a speedy deletion (an admin does the actual deletion) - to request this, put the following code at the top of the page (with your own rationale in place of mine): {{db-userreq|rationale=Article has been moved to mainspace, so this user draft is no longer needed.}} --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Gronk Oz. Found it. Very helpful.Kekki1978 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Should I remove "resubmit" from a rejected article?

Recently I submitted an article about the Xerox artist Louise Odes Neaderland. My article, which was quite thorough and upon which I had done considerable research, was quickly rejected. I was given the option of resubmitting the article, and I clicked that I would like to "resubmit." planning to improve it. Almost immediately a new, accepted, very spare article with several contributors about her appeared on Wikipedia.

My question is whether I should somehow remove the "resubmit" from my rejected article and contribute my references to the currently accepted article by the other group, or should I leave the "resubmit" note and continue working on my own article in case the current one does not last. I have already made a few changes to the currently accepted article, including removing the word "collageist" as a descriptive word for Neaderland, who does not consider herself a collageist.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Mitzi.humphrey: Welcome to the Teahouse! Since the article has been created, I'd go ahead and improve the live article with your own content/references. The article would have to go through an articles for deletion discussion in order to be deleted, presumingly due to a lack of notability. If that ever happens, you may request that the deleted article be restored as a draft with which you can work on and improve (assuming more sources come up that help establish notability). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply in answering my question, SuperHamster! Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Not entering the main discussion, Mitzi.humphrey, but a side issue I noticed, from what you said. What matters for Wikipedia is not what Neaderland describes herself as, but what reliable sources describe her as. If several reliable sources describe her as a collageist (I have no idea whether or not this is the case, I'm making a general point), then it might well be appropriate to use it in the article. If a reliable source reports that she does not consider herself as one, then the article could note that fact too, but that does not necessarily mean that the article shouldn't use it. (For the latter purpose, the source would not have to be independent: her own published statement can be used as a source for what she thinks!) --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I have merged most of the content into the main article, and left templates on the talk pages for attribution. Now you can work on cleaning up and adding to the main article. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Article Keeps Getting Rejected

Can you please advise on any changes I can make to this article so that it is approved? Is it the content or is it the sources that are the problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Samanage Danibeavs (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Danibeavs, welcome to the Teahouse. The sources are what you should focus on. Sources/references are not for giving general information about, say, what SaaS is; that's what wikilinks are for. The sources have to support the specific statements in the article: that Samanage specifically provides SaaS, etc. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
One last thing, Danibeavs: When looking for more sources, keep in mind that press releases and interviews are not considered independent. These should be kept to a minimum. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Danbeavs; to come at what Anon124 has said from another angle: you need to find places where somebody with no connection whatever to Samanage has written at length about the company and published it in a reliable place, such as a major newspaper or a book from a reputable publisher (not social media, blogs, or any site that allows user-generated content). If you cannot find at least two such places, then the company is not at present notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) and there is nothing at all that you can do to the article to make it acceptable (except - perhaps - wait). --ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
While I have completed some minor cleanup, by changing heading styles and adding wikilinks instead of "refs", I agree with the above posters that this article would need more refs to independent sources. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

How to rephrase for accuracy?

I'm not sure how to rephrase this sentence without dismissing some of the information submitted by previous users. On the page for Metoclopramide, it says it is used for delayed stomach emptying (gastroparesis) due to either diabetes or following surgery. Gastroparesis has more than two causes, the most common being idiopathic (unknown). My desire is to just delete the 'due to' piece of this sentence entirely and let the linked article describe the causes more accurately. I don't want to step on any toes, though. Ataylor18 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ataylor18 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Go to Talk:Metoclopramide and click on "new section" and explain your problem. If there are people watching the article, they might be able to help you.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Ataylor18 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

Is there an issue with using links to book sellers in "Published works" sections? I am assisting someone with a draft at User:Penslips/sandbox and am not sure if there's an issue linking to Amazon or Barnes and Nobles (i.e., potential SPAM, marketing issue).

Your help is greatly appreciated!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson Such links are indeed often regarded as promotional WP:Linkspam, rather use the {{cite book}} template without <ref></ref> tags, it will simply display the bibliographic details in a standard format, like this:
Carroll, Lewis (1999). The annotated Alice : Alice's adventures in Wonderland & Through the looking glass. New York: Norton. ISBN 978-0393048476.
Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wiki!

I got a page rejected recently because the content was copied with permission from the organization's website. I want to do another page for another organization that I am member of but the best content is what they've said about themselves on their own site. They know I am doing the page and approved the text. How do I submit this so it doesn't get rejected by wiki?

Thanks!

JenJjenred5 (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jjenred5. For the purposes of a Wikipedia article, material from the group's own website is not the best content, for two reasons. First, notability of the group is established by significant coverage of that group in independent, reliable sources. Their website is by definition not independent. Second, organizational website language is almost always (and quite properly for its purpose) promotional. An encyclopedia article needs a completely different style of writing, what we call the neutral point of view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
And, further to Cullen's reply Jjenred5, the organisation's approval is irrelevant. If there happened to be significant criticism of the organisation published in a reliable place that should be discussed in the article, whether the organisation liked it or not. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
To your question however. While for the most part, we don't accept content from a organizations own site as it isn't neutral, but for it to not be a copyright violation either the site needs to clearly note somewhere it is released under something like CC-by-SA 4.0. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. Even if it's all cited to other news articles?

Thanks!Jjenred5 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If it was cited to other news articles thats a good start. However the citations must support what you are writing. But once again, if the content of the article appears copied from pretty much any website, it will probably be deleted quite quickly as a copyvio. Use your own words, and have lots of sources to keep it from speedy deletion. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

formatting question

On the page I just created for Film Fatales I put a grid and there's two formatting issues I'm having. First, for some reason it moved the grid to below references when it should be below "other los angeles members" and the first volume is weirdly shaped. Any ideas?

Thanks!Jjenred5 (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jjenred5 and welcome!. I have fixed the table placement in this edit. Just a small wikitext error that happens alot. I'll take a look at the formatting now. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
bad. ass! You're awesome, thank you!Jjenred5 (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In the article on Mike Pondsmith there is a bibliography of publications which lists ISBN (standard book numbers) for each title. I noticed that these were highlighted, clicked on one and was taken to the WP article on the ISBN. I tried a second, with the same result. I have tried without success to remove these links since they are completely unnecessary. There are no [[ ]] to remove. Any ideas? Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Twofingered Typist. I tried about half a dozen of those ISBNs and was taken each time to "Book sources", a specialized search engine that can find the specific book in libraries and booksellers, as well as providing bibliographic information about the book. Didn't you get "Book sources"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It depends on exactly where you click. If you click on the word "ISBN", it will take you to the Wikipedia article about ISBN. If you click on the number, it will take you to the "Book sources" search engine.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey :Twofingered Typist. Between the two posts above, if what you'd like to suggest is removal of the link to our article on International Standard Book Number every time an ISBN is provided before the link to the isbn number itself (amd not the link to special book sources), that link appears to be a function of the citation templates we use (probably ultimately from Module:Citation/CS1), and I think a good place to discuss such a global change would be through a post to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). I do think it's a bit redundant. I never noticed that before and it's odd that the magic link to Special:BookSources, when you just type ISBN NUMBER, links the whole shebang to Special:BookSources (e.g. ISBN 0-15-131510-8), and it's only the citation templates that separate it out into a link to ISBN and a separate link to Special:BookSources after it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It is highly likely that many of our readers have no idea what ISBN means, and that link allows them to find out easily. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence when a user clicks on an isbn number to access Special:Booksources is "This page allows users to search for multiple sources for a book given the 10- or 13-digit ISBN number..." (and it's linked again in the next explanatory sentence on the page), meaning if the link from ISBN was removed, or alternatively, was included as part of the link to Special:Booksources (just as it is when you see an isbn used outside of the citation templates), people would still get the information but I think in a more targeted way and the separate link to ISBN is a bit of a distraction from the main purpose of provided the link to Special:Booksources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The automatic linking on "ISBN xxxxxxxxxx" is a general MediaWiki feature (mw:Manual:ISBN) and has to work in wikis without a page about ISBN numbers so no such page is linked. Wikipedia's citation templates have chosen to not use the automatic feature but link to the Wikipedia article International Standard Book Number. There is an old discussion at Talk:International Standard Book Number/Archive 5#Change the ISBN link. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The consensus of that discussion seems pretty clearly on the side of delinking. Referrring to it, User:Alan Liefting started a discussion at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 1#ISBN link but there was no participation so it looks like it died on the vine.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

please check my new template

I've created a template, {{AHDict}}, for references to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, modeling it on {{OED}}. This is a more complex template than I'm familiar with, so I'd really appreciate an experienced templatician (?) checking it over.

Also, the categories Dictionary source templates and External link templates show on {{OED}} but not on {{AHDict}}, even though I've included the identical wikicode: 

<includeonly>
{{#ifeq:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|sandbox | |
<!-------------------------------------------------------------------
       Categories below here, interwikis to Wikidata.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------->

[[Category:Dictionary source templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:External link templates]]
}}</includeonly>

To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu: The category issue was fixed in [3]. Users may have old print editions and I would make an optional edition parameter with code like edition={{{edition|5th}}}. Why is date=2014 when The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language says the 5th edition is from 2011? The web version currently says "Fifth Edition copyright ©2014" but if you use {{cite book}} then I think the print date should be used. If an edition parameter is added then there should be a switch (mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions##switch) to set the date. Why do you pipe [[American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language|The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]] when [[The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]] would go directly to the article and skip a redirect? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
PrimeHunter, thanks for commenting.
  • Categories: Mm, wonder how I missed that? Up too late working, probably. (Checks clock.) Like now.
  • Print editions: I should have made it explicit that this (version of the) template is only for references to the online edition. I'll change it to use {{cite web}}.
  • ... and copyright date: Thanks for pointing me to the function.
  • Pipe: Umm... see "Categories" ↑↑. Sorry :-( .
--Thnidu (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't get templates. Please help me understand.

Newbie here. In my ignorance I imagine a template to be 1) a defined interface, to 2) a function. I'm trying to learn about this template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Librivox/doc and I don't see any of the code that assembles these parms into commands that produces a URL. I've looked around and all I've been able to find so far is a description of the parameters; I've never found the code. Am I way off here? I'm just trying to understand if this above template needs revision. Thanks for any help you can give an 'ol Bonehead. TimoleonWash (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @TimoleonWash: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not familiar with that template in particular, but if you go to Template:Librivox and edit the page, you'll see the templates code (direct link). You can see how it assembles the URL, and takes in the name of the page the template is placed on as an argument. Hope this helps. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Way Cool SuperHamster' Talk Contribs, thx. There is the secret code :) And it sure has a lot of "[" and "{" in it. Is there a place to learn this code myself or should I try to get an expert to explain it to me? TimoleonWash (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@TimoleonWash: See Help:Template. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem @TimoleonWash: Templates can definitely get confusing, and the one you're looking at is no exception. I learned how to use templates through experimentation and reading (your sandbox is your friend), so perhaps you'll find doing the same to be useful. Prime's link above is definitely helpful, and I'd start there. I'll try to explain some foundations, too.
Some templates use Parser Functions. These include your if-statements, comparisons, and switches. For example, let's look at the first part of the code for Librivox: {{#ifeq: {{{bullet|}}} | none | | * }}
Looking at the documentation for the ifeq function, it works like this: {{#ifeq: string 1 | string 2 | value if identical | value if different }}
When someone uses the template, the function checks to see if the bullet parameter is defined. If it is defined as "none", no bullet point is displayed. If it is defined as anything other than "none" (or isn't defined at all), it defaults to having the bullet point.
{{Librivox|bullet=none|foo1|foo2|foo3}} produces:
  • foo2 public domain audiobook at LibriVox (foo3 translator)
Meanwhile, {{Librivox|foo1|foo2|foo3}} produces:
  • foo2 public domain audiobook at LibriVox (foo3 translator)
Hopefully this helps a bit. Again, Prime's link (Help:Template) is a great starting point, and if you get stuck, feel free to ask. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thx PrimeHunter (talk & SuperHamster' Talk Contribs, this is sure a lot of info. It looks like I have some homework :) If I were to change the template, how would I identify every page it is used on in case they needed updating? Also, because I am not confident I can actually learn this markup language, are there folks here that do template modifications for boneheads like me? TimoleonWash (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If you change the template, every page it is "trancluded" on automagically changes too (sometimes it takes a few seconds). Normally no changes to articles where it is used are needed. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Good to know EoRdE6User talk:EoRdE6, thanks. I'm happy to hear manual work is kept at a minimum. Out of non-idle curiosity, what if the parm list changes? I imagine additional parameters would require no rework, but what about removing a parm? And thanks also for your offer to do some minor coding for me. Shall I provide the programming specs in this thread?TimoleonWash (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes removing parameters does become difficult an is not often done because of this. That being said, it is rarely needed to be done either, usually a parameters is removed from the documentation, but left in the coding for backwards compatibility. Now it depends what specifically you need doing, but anywhere will work, as long as you ping me like you just did. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hum... ping. Ring your bell or such, yes? I guess by putting your user name in this post, like this: EoRdE6User talk:EoRdE6, right? Re. LibriVox, I have just verified the syntax of their URL which is this (all strung together w/o spaces of course):
https://librivox.org/search?
title=a+christmas+carol * the individual words of the title with the spaces between words replaced by the "+" char.
&author=dickens * the authors last name (I don't know yet about the case where there is a space in the authors name).
&reader=
&keywords=
&genre_id=0 * I don't know what "0" means, but doesn't matter for our purposes.
&status=all
&project_type=either * I don't know what this means, but doesn't matter.
&recorded_language=
&sort_order=catalog_date * If this is in existing template it's good, don't need to add it though.
&search_page=1 * Don't need.
&search_form=advanced * Required I believe.
Would you verify that the existing template supports the title and author fields? I think it may do something with the name of the translator also and whatever it does can be left alone. Once the wikipedia world is assured that this existing template works as is then I, and others, can start populating wikipedia book pages with links to the corresponding audio books. Yipee! TimoleonWash (talk) And I am deeper in your debt; what can I do about this? — Preceding undated comment added 06:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok I'm not going to lie I'm getting a bit confused here so I'm going to start at the beginning. For citing a book source, most people simply use {{cite book}} which has many, many parameters for your hearts desire. It is up to the editor inserting the reference however to find the information to fill in these references and their various parameters (until WP:reFill starts supporting books). So you should be able to take some of {{cite book}}, fill it in and have a references to the book page. But your statement really confuses me quite a lot... If you wanted to link users to the audiobook, the best way to do that would be by taking the direct link (ex: librivox.org/a-christmas-carol-by-charles-dickens and placing it in the external links section, maybe like Audio book on Librivox. I'm sorry if this hasn't answered your question, but as I said I am having difficulty understanding it. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Leonardo Gagliano

Move that pls somebody to -> Gagliano Neto. This man is unknown as Leonardo Gagliano. Link added to the article. Cheers, 115.69.63.229 (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, 115.69.63.229, after checking that that is how the sources refer to him. The move will have left Leonardo Gagliano behind as a redirect. --ColinFine (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Reg. Vandalism

Hey! I would like to report some vandalism on the album site for "To Pimp A Butterfly" by Kendrick Lamar.

First you go to the summary "producers" and he got his name in there "Itzik Bensoli", and then after to tracklisting that he have completely ereased the original producer names and put his own name "Itzik Bensoli" . (this regards track nr 4 "Institutionilized") where it should be - Fredrik 'Tommy Black' Halldin, Rahki. Also in the "writer" section he got his name "Itzik Bensoli" that should be ereased also.

Here's the link for the fake edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=To_Pimp_a_Butterfly&diff=651628176&oldid=651628170

Best regards 83.252.51.170 (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 83.252.51.170, and welcome to the Teahouse. Congratulations! You have now been drafted into the anti-vandalism cadre here in Wikipedia Please feel free to correct that mistake by editing the article itself. Every editor is able to make changes to articles. If you're not quite sure how to do this please come back to the Teahouse and we can walk you through the process.
  Bfpage |leave a message  11:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
As the page is semi-protected, and the user is an IP, they cannot make the changes themselves. There has been extensive vandalism on that page, and I don't know enough about the subject to know what is correct, and what is false. I suggest 83.252.51.170 requests this as a semi-protected edit request at Talk:To Pimp a Butterfly - Arjayay (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Table/Formatting Question

How can I change the first column (Date) of the first table on Opinion polling for the Israeli legislative election, 2013 so that the number and month are on the same line? Yomybrotha (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

They appear to be on the same line on my screen if you are talking about the field that says 22 Jan etc. But to stop text from "wrapping" to the next line you simply encase it in no wrap templates. Follow that link for more information. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Yomybrotha. There is little point in trying to specify formatting of text at that level. Readers will be viewing it in different browsers, and on different devices with different screen sizes. Browsers do their best to display it sensibly, but one size will never fit all. While sometimes there can be a definite need to constrain the formatting, in general the more constraints you put on, the harder it may make it for the browser to make sensible choices on some screens. --ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Yomybrotha: One or a few cells sometimes force a whole column to be wider because browsers don't break strings into two lines. I sometimes use soft hyphen &shy; to allow the browser to break words at a given place. If it's a wikilinked term then piping must be used like [[Hatnuah|Hat&shy;nuah]]. Here it renders as Hat­nuah which will only break if it's at the right margin. If you use it at the linked table then remember to also do it at the bottom of the column. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

approval for a created article

I've created an article on an organization and put it on my personal page so I could edit and revise it. I've just added the references. How do I get approval and, ultimately, for it to get it's own namespace? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bebesarah

Thank you, Bebe (Sarah) Bebesarah (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add {{subst:Submit}} to the top of the draft and save the page. That will submit it to the queue for review. I also made a few formatting changes to comply with the house style.--ukexpat (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_319&oldid=791941224"