Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 523

Archive 520

Archive 521

Archive 522

Archive 523

Archive 524

Archive 525

→

Archive 530

Templates

Last time I nominated a template for deletion, it was a mistake. That's why, I wanna know about these templates:

Template:End of revelations about the plot. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Those two templates look like they were used for spoiler warnings, something that WP no longer warns about – see WP:SPOILER.

And searching for them in all of en.wikipedia.org, I only found one page where they were used, in an edit that occurred yesterday.

So I would say fire away with your nomination for deletion!  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree - they should go. Apart from each other, and here, they are used in only one place, a draft article in Habbonight's sandbox - I suggest Habbonight read WP:SPOILER. --ColinFine (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion because I am an evil kill-stealer for the good of Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I need help with my templates

1. I need to link the audio in this template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Pashto_IPA_chart/table_vowels_with_audio with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_central_vowel
2. I need to make this template smaller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Pashto_IPA_chart_vowels_with_audio

Can someone please assist me Adjutor101 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A better place to ask this type of question is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). -- GB fan 19:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Adjutor101 (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Templates 'Reply to' and 'User link'

Hello teahouse. Just interested in the difference between {{Reply to}} and {{User link}} in relation to notification. I read the respective wikipages and am none the wiser. The {{User link}} page does not mention notification (the documentation could be improved in this respect) but I do receive an email when someone uses the template. Which template is preferred or doesn't it matter. Many thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi RobbieIanMorrison. There is no preference. A notification is caused by a wikilink to a user page, whether by some template or written directly like [[User:RobbieIanMorrison|RobbieIanMorrison]] in this post. Most of the templates which include such links were written and documented long before the notification feature was introduced in 2013. Some of them have since added mention that they cause a notification but for most of them it's a side effect and not the main purpose like for {{Reply to}}. mw:Manual:Echo#Technical details mentions some situations where a user page link will not produce a notification but they have nothing to do with templates. The main condition is that it must happen in a signed edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello PrimeHunter. That's a very useful reply. Thanks very much. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing my first article - Ross Ulbricht article

Hi, I'm not new to Wikipedia in the sense that I've used it and appreciated it for years. I've recently decided to actively participate because I learned I can - so easily, thank you. The first article I'd like to work on is about Ross Ulbricht. But I'm also concerned about stepping on toes and/or creating a conflict when that's not my intention. I noticed that two people have edited this article since earlier this year. Wikipedia's stated policy doesn't indicate a need to ask permission but I'm wondering if I should contact those two editors directly, as a courtesy.

I'd like to rewrite the article, touching on the distinction between the government's position and the defense's, decisions by the court that influenced the jury and why, the corruption underlying the investigation, and the appeal that's now pending. This appeal will affect precedent, not just case law, but laws passed by Congress in the future relative to internet privacy, the drug war, and criminal justice reform, which are socially compelling issues today and the fundamental reasons Ulbricht's case is important. I would use a lot more cites to the trial transcript (most of which I've read) and alternative media (eg, reason.com).

To say there are problems with the criminal justice system in general and Ross Ulbricht's trial and conviction in particular is not facile or cliche. Here, many of the articles cited rely on Silk Road journals for their information about Ross Ulbricht (those journals are disputed and an unreliable source of factual information) or a point of view favorable to the government's position without regard to real, objective flaws the defense has struggled with.

I think this article should reflect the fact that Ulbricht's claim to fame is not just starting an online black market but that his criminal case is a spotlight for the social issues mentioned above. The article doesn't in its current form reflect this in a cohesive, identifiable manner.

Sorry to be long-winded. I'll certainly be more succinct with this or any other article. Thanks, LeslieLhboston (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lhboston, and thanks for coming here and asking. You're right that you do not need permission from anybody to edit an article, but that it can cause conflict if you plough in and do so. What I suggest you do is outline on the article's talk page the changs you would like to make. I'm guessing you're talking about Sizeofint as one of the other editors, and my mentioning them here in the {{U}} template will notify them of this discussion - you can similarly notify any other editors in your discussion if you think they might not have noticed.

The change of yours that David Gerard undid he was right to undo: editorial comment never belongs in an article, but on its talk page.

One thing I would caution you about: you must put no argumentation, advocacy, synthesis, or conclusion in the article, unless you are reporting a reliable source that has made that argument: please read carefully about original research. You are free to report what different reliable sources say about a subject, and may give appropriate weight to them according to their preponderance and standing; but you must not attempt to discuss them critically or reach a conclusion about them. --ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The trouble with the Ross Ulbricht article is that he has a lot of advocates, and what they say tends to be unsupported by the reliable sources. Note how all the claims are sourced to mainstream (non-Bitcoin advocacy, non-Libertarian advocacy, non-"alternative media") press, for example. If you believe the mainstream sources on a subject are wrong, it can be very easy to slip into advocacy or, worse, righting great wrongs. These styles of editing are unlikely to survive checking against the factual statements verified in mainstream press. If you want to write an essay about why the mainstream press-reported position is wrong, Wikipedia probably isn't the place for it and edits along those lines won't stand.

That said, nothing stops you drafting a new version, but expect it to be edited with all the sources in the present version if it has any hope of replacing the present article - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You're probably going to step on a few toes learning the ropes but I hope that doesn't discourage you from editing. I don't want to overwhelm you with policy at this point but in addition to David's pointers I would direct you to the neutral point of view policy and the weight policy. The article should reflect what mainstream reliable sources state and not be a polemic against injustices. We also generally try to avoid using primary sources like direct transcripts. Feel free to post on my talk page or alert me with a the {{U}} or {{Ping}} templates if you have questions about anything. Welcome! Sizeofint (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Will this go to everyone, I wonder? Yes, I understand Ross Ulbricht is a tricky topic. The other day I was trying to simply tag the article for greater neutrality and obviously didn't know how to do. I have taken the Adventure tutorial, which is really quite good. I also take the editing policies seriously and will adhere to them to the best of my ability. Thank you for your pointers and responses! They're much appreciated. Lhboston (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, right. What you attempted to do with this edit can be done in the article, Lhboston, but not that way: you should use a template such as {{POV section}}. But if you're going to use this, you should justify it on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Should note that a tagging that is not justified with sources that meet WP:RS is unlikely to stand - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

How do I propose a merge?

I was looking at an article and I felt that it wasn't notable enough to stand as an article of its' own. How do I propose a merge? Verified Cactus (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: the easiest way is with Twinkle, a script that helps automate many tasks. If you want to do it manually, you can put {{merge to}} on the article you wanted merged and {{merge from}} on the article you it merged into. After that, start a discussion on the talk page of the destination article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged. Verified Cactus (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

How do I translate an article?

I have three current articles, and I would like to make them more accessable. I know Spanish, Scots leid, and a little bit of some other languages, but don't know how to translate my articles. Thank you.

Sea Captain Cormac 02:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)

Does the WP:Translate us page help? Rojomoke (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Trying to verify if I posted first article correctly and set it up for review

Hi there, I thought I followed the steps correctly to save and submit my first article, but I can't tell that's actually happened. I'm seeing a box that says it hasn't been submitted for review, but when I click on the submit button, I see a bunch of characters; I no longer see the story. I'm afraid to click "return" or whatever the button is to complete the action because I don't want to wipe the work I spent all night creating. Can anyone help me figure this out? It looks as if I followed every other step correctly, from boldfacing to referencing. But I'd sure like the people who are supposed to judge that to take a look. Thanks for any help ...

TexasEditor1 (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TexasEditor1. You have only two edits to Wikipedia. The second was your Teahouse question above, and the first created Draft:Billy Crockett. This count may not include deleted edits. If you take a look at your own draft article, you will see a prominent notification at the top saying that you have not yet submitted it for review. I suggest that you wait before submitting it. Your references do not show that this person is notable. I read your fourth reference from the Huffington Post twice and it does not even mention Crockett once. It seems that a band recorded at a recording studio that your draft says Crockett helped found. But the source does not say that. There is a lot of what I see as unreferenced name dropping in your draft. That is a very bad sign.

A Wikipedia article should summarize what reliable independent sources say about a topic. Your draft article says a lot of things that are unreferenced. That is a major shortcoming. I suggest that you read Your first article and do your very best to bring your draft article into full compliance before submitting it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I already chatted with someone else who answered my question and gave me constructive advice. I also can assure you I read "Your First Article" and as much of the other information as I could digest before I tried to post. I also tried to include proper links and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasEditor1 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello TexasEditor1. But you still have a Huffington Post reference in your draft article that does not even mention Crockett. Why would you think that this reference helps to establish his notability or belongs in an article about him when it does not even mention him? Please give a logical answer. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know when you looked again, but I must have been editing when you were. That link is no longer there. It was meant to support the reference to artists who recorded at the studio. -- TexasEditor1 (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

How to become a semi protected on user's page?

Hello am trying to edit some musicians pages and it says i have to be semi protected, what should i do ? Musicianguides (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Musicianguides, you can't become semi-protected, semi-protection is a status of a page, not of a user. See WP:SEMI.

Possibly the page says it is semi-protected, so you are not allowed to edit it? --CiaPan (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Musicianguides, welcome to the Teahouse. The page probably says it is semi-protected. Your account has to be autoconfirmed to edit semi-protected pages. That means the account must be four days old and have at least ten edits. Your account is currently one day and has eight edits. Until you become autoconfirmed you can click the "View source" tab on the article and follow the instructions to submit an edit request. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Read the protection policy. Semi-protection is a measure that is sometimes applied to pages that protects them from edits by unregistered editors and by editors like the original poster who are not autoconfirmed. The most common reason for semi-protecting a page is vandalism by IP addresses. As noted, a new editor can request an edit to a semi-protected page. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Why don't admins like it when I try to make articles more neutral?

A bunch of admins were picking on me for making "disruptive" and "erroneous" edits and contributions. My edits primarily focus on making articles more neutral and secondarily on making sure facts are verifiable. They respond to me with various excuses to use the word "Well-known" or tell me that us newbies shouldn't be giving advice to experienced Wikipedians. They even threaten to penalize me. You can ccompare my revisions to see if they did good to make Wikipedia more NPOV. Some admins accuse my edits of making the articles full of spelling or grammatical errors and use this accusation as an excuse to revert my edits.

• Little Rock, Arkansas
• Louis Braille

--Turkeybutt (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason to say things like you said them in the Little Rock edit. Instead of adding all that about the society dubbing the river crossing this or that, just say that the river crossing is well-known, and cite the group's website at the end of the sentence. Your edits made the article read in a clunky way. You probably didn't intend it, but I do agree with reverting it. The other linked edit, to Louis Braille, was entirely correct.

By the way, I've written 82 articles here, 5 of which have been listed as Good, and have used "well-known" multiple times. It and "notable" are completely acceptable and are not puffery. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Although sometimes things are described as "well-known", "notable" or "very famous" without supporting sources simply as puffery, which isn't acceptable. Gab4gab (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Bot

Hello, i want to know that how to command our bot so that they can work automatically ? 36.253.254.4 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, IP user, I don't understand your question. Unless it is answered by WP:Bots, you'll have to explain it more clearly. I moved your question to the top, because that is where new questions go on this page --ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Userboxes?

Hi there. I basically want to include "userboxes" on my userpage, as I've seen on other editor's userpages. How do you make userboxes? Thanks for your help. RW1234 (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi RW1234. A little trick. Very often if you know the name of anything on Wikipedia, then adding Wikipedia: or its shortcut, which works the same, WP: in front of it, will take you to a help, explanation or process page explaining the subject. With that in mind, please take a look at WP:Userboxes. If you have any follow-up questions after visiting there, please ask here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks. RW1234 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't even ask a question. I need help.

This is attempt number 6. I haven't been able to post a question and know that it has actually been posted. It just disappears. The instructions on Wikipedia are really obtuse, with incorrect information (e.g., click on "Save Page", when no such button exists) and "sign ... by ending with four tildes..." - But, what does this mean? Put my username (which is what signing means) before or after the tildes? Or, just the tildes with no username? Why does it have to be so obtuse and difficult????? There are much more user-friendly ways of doing things. Working on Wikipedia is just so extremely frustrating... and I have considerable experience with programming, wikis, html.

But, the major issue is how to submit a set of 4 articles that are interlinked. I submitted one, but it was rejected because there was no link to the yet to be submitted other articles.

Is there a way to just talk directly to one individual who can help me through this?

Thanks.

bloom_jeff Jeffwb (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeffwb: the question above is only the fourth contribution you have ever made to Wikipedia. Two of the others have been to Draft:International Bateson Institute, and the fourth was a question at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. Judging from that question, your intention is to submit four articles, each supported only by references to the others. That is never going to work. Wikipedia articles must be supported by references to reliable independent published sources, which may not include Wikipedia. I suggest that you start by picking one of the four subjects, and if you can find acceptable sources to establish that it is notable, create a draft for that one. Maproom (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

In response to Maproom.

This form of communication and the difficulties in such communication can be completely avoided, with a better interface and a better way of communicating. However, I did not say that this was the 6th attempt to post an article. I said that this was the 6th attempt at trying to get a QUESTION posted. And, I did NOT say that the only references were to the other articles in the set. Each article is linked to the others, but each one is supported by many outside and internal (to Wikipedia) sources.

Please don't make assumptions. Look at the actual meaning. Jeffwb (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jeffwb. We all feel the frustrations of Wikipedia's 15-year-old software. It isn't perfect and there is a bit of a learning curve. However, even the smallest change impacts hundreds of millions of articles on several of the world's largest websites, so implementing a "better interface" is not so straightforward. The good news is it is an open source project, so if you would like to volunteer your considerable programming experience to improving it, you are welcome to.

To answer your actual question, you can use the article wizard to submit your new articles. The will be reviewed separately, as all Wikipedia articles must independently adhere to our core content policies. Your submission Draft:International Bateson Institute was declined because it had no independent references, not because of the lack of related articles. Joe Roe (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jeffwb. I am sorry that you are having difficulty learning our coding. Yes, it can be tricky at first but with a bit of practice, it will become easier. After all, we have succeeded in creating the #6 website in the world with many millions of articles. In order to date and sign a post, you just type four tildes, and nothing else. As for Draft:International Bateson Institute, it has no references to reliable, independent sources and so cannot be accepted in its current form. Red links are not sufficient reason to decline a draft. Your two references are published by the International Bateson Institute itself so do not establish notability in Wikipedia terms. Please read Your first article to better understand our requirements. As for our interface, I suggest that you discuss that with the Wikimedia Foundation staff. Those of us who are humble Teahouse volunteers have nothing to do with interface changes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

To sign using the tildes, simply type in the four tildes (without spaces between them) with nothing else (except, of course, the content). The software coverts the four tildes so that once you hit 'Save changes,' which should be at the bottom of the input box (i.e., the box in which you type your comments), below 'Edit summary' but above 'This is a minor edit.' ('Edit summary,' 'Save changes' and 'This is a minor edit' are with some other, related stuff in a light blue or gray rectangle just under the whit input box (at least that's the way it is on all the computers I've used). [Now i have finished answering you, si I will "sign' my name, i.e., I will type four tildes after this sentence and closing the parens, and when I hit 'Save changes,' it will come out as 'kdammers.')Kdammers (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jeffwb. I get that you are frustrated, and it's certainly true that many things on Wikipedia are not as easy as they might be. Given that, I wish that so many people did not plunge straight in and try to do one of the most difficult tasks in Wikipedia, which is to create a new article. I always advise people to spend a few weeks helping to improve some of our many many substandard articles, and getting the feel for how Wikipedia works, before trying for the big one.

The people who write and configure the software, like the editors, are mainly volunteers: there are places where you can suggest and discuss improvements to how it works (most accessibly, the Village pump). But it is a huge and complex beast, that many many people have put their ideas into.

You criticise Maproom for making assumptions: but "submitting a set of four articles" is not a recognisable task on Wikipedia. Creating an article is, and then creating another article, and so on. Your mention of "a set of four articles" made me think, as it evidently did Maproom, that these articles somehow depended on one another. What other "actual meaning" are we supposed to ascribe to "a set"?

I'm not sure if you've read Your first article, but if not, I suggest you do. And as I said, my personal recommendation is that you get rather more experience of editing Wikipedia - and looking at the outcome of review and deletion discussions - before you return to creating articles. --ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the reason that Jeffwb refers to the articles as being interlinked is that Robert McClenon's review states: "Transcontextual research and warm data appear to be important to understanding the mission of this institute, but they are not defined, being redlinked instead. Define them". That is not, as I see it, the primary reason for the decline - the lack of sources is - but it perhaps explains some of the above. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Cordless Larry is right. The primary problem with the article is the lack of independent sources. However, it does appear that to understand what the Institute does, it is important to know what "transcontextual research" is, and the article doesn't define it. The author has created a difficult task for themselves by making the articles dependent on each other. If the article had had independent sources, but had still had a redlink for transcontextual research, I probably would have neither accepted nor declined the article, but would have left a comment that transcontextual research should be defined. As it is, for the article on the Bateson Institute to be accepted, independent sources that have written about the Bateson Institute, such as scholarly reviews or newspaper articles, are needed, as well as an explanation of transcontextual research. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have one more comment. A considerable amount of the draft on the Bateson Institute had to be removed as being a direct copy from their web site, and therefore a copyright violation. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. In fact, the draft was first nominated for deletion as in copyright violation, before the copyright violating material was deleted instead. Wikipedia cannot accept copy-and-pastes from web sites. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Does the author have any specific questions about how to edit Wikipedia that haven't been answered? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The author says that they made six attempts to ask a question, and this and the question at the AFC Help Desk are the only two that I can see. What was the nature of the other efforts to ask a question? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

.js pages?

Hello! Can someone please explain what my monobook.js, vector.js, common.js and skin.js pages are? What are .js pages and what is the difference between them? I can't seem to find anything about them. What are they used for and how do they work? Thank you! NikolaiHo 01:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nikolaiho. Take a look at Wikipedia:User scripts, which explains them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nikolaiho. JS stands for Javascript, and those pages allow you to add custom Javascript that will be loaded whenever you visit a Wikipedia page. Basically, they're a way of customising how Wikipedia behaves (as opposed to your common.css page, which customises how it looks). The most common use for them is to install user scripts.

The differences between the four files aren't too important. Vector and Monobook are skins. Vector is probably the one you're using now, Monobook is what Wikipedia used to look like before 2010. Anything you add to monobook.js or vector.js will only apply if you are using the respective skin. common.js applies to both skins. skin.js is simply a convenient redirect to your current skin. Unless you have a special reason to, it's usually best just to put everything in common.js Joe Roe (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict). See Wikipedia:Skin and Wikipedia:Customisation for details. Here is a limited description. JavaScript is a programming language which can run in most browsers when they visit a website with JavaScript. .js pages have JavaScript code. At Wikipedia they can change how the site looks and works for you, for example add links to interface menus or add features to the editor. At Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering you can choose between different skins for your account. They display different designs for Wikipedia pages. See for example your user page in MonoBook or Modern. The code to position your username looks bad for me in those skins. Your monobook.js and vector.js only run if you select that skin. Your common.js runs regardless of your skin selection. Special:MyPage/skin.js should redirect to the .js page for whatever skin you currently have selected (may fail in some browsers). skin.js is not meant to be a page by itself. JavaScript programmers can write their own scripts in their .js files or make them available for others. Wikipedia:User scripts shows some of the scripts which were written by other users and can be used without knowing JavaScript. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Official website on social media

I created my first article about an international sports person. This person uses a Facebook page as an official website. When I put this in the article, it was automatically deleted by the bot, and the message refers to the guidelines and indicates that it is possible to undo this, but after looking at the guidelines I am unsure if this is something I should undo or that for an official website it should just be outside social media. Any advice on this would be appreciated.

Belfastchild1974 Belfastchild1974 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Belfastchild974. It looks like the edit you're referring to is this. It also looks like XLinkBot has been set up to remove links to social media accounts, etc. added as external links to avoid the problems listed at WP:LINKFARM and no. 10 of WP:ELNO, but adding links to official social media accounts may be acceptable under certain conditions as explained in WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Bots are fine for performing routine tasks and doing what they are programmed to do, but they see every situation as the same and are under to make judgment calls for borderline cases. The bot also completely removed the entire "References" section for some unknown reason, perhaps just because the location of the "External links" section has been mistakenly placed before "References" (It should go after per WP:ORDER). ANyway, I'm not very familiar with bots, but you can ask it's creator at User talk:XLinkBot to see if the bot was malfunctioning at the time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

how to change username ?

hi, i am Knowledge sharer how do i change my username Knowledge sharer (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Knowledge sharer, welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Changing username for how to make a request. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Prime hunter Knowledge sharer (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Knowledge sharer: Changing a username is actually quite a finicky process that has to be carried out manually by an administrator. Since your account is new and you have less than 20 edits, you will probably be asked to simply make a new one. Joe Roe (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Places to look for Feedbackon newly created articles

Hey guys, I've written an article (together with some classmates) in my sandbox (User:Hawkseraph/sandbox). I wanted to get some feedback on it before putting it into mainspace (ideally from somewhat knowledgeable people, but any editor will probably have good pointers), but I'm having trouble finding a good place for that. I've made a request at the psychology wikiproject, but the assessment task force seem to be all but dead. I distinctly remember there being a specific place for this, but I've been unable to find it. Please halp :) --Hawks Talk/Edits 09:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hawkseraph. I think you must be thinking of WP:AFC. Just add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft to submit it there. Joe Roe (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Past tense for historic articles?

Am I right that articles about past events should be written in the past tense and not the present tense? Where can I read more about this rule? Thanks Vaaljapie (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vaaljapie. Yes that is correct - "Generally, do not use past tense except for deceased subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such." - see MOS:TENSE for further detail - Arjayay (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Vaaljapie (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

everyone is dissing my good edits why?

why does my good edits get things like -43 for a score, they're good edits?Griffen Ray (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Griffen Ray. The red minus sign next to a number indicates the net number of bytes an edit removes (roughly corresponding with the number of characters) and a green plus sign next to a number indicates the opposite. It has nothing whatever to do with grading anything. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks that makes a lot more senseGriffen Ray (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest question

I am employed by a not for profit organisation with a very short wikipedia entry. The page is rated stub quality, with just a tiny bit of organisational history, and then some material on a controversy that the organisation was involved in a few years ago. The page is also low priority, and has only received a few minor edits in the last two years.

My understanding is that it is not good practice to edit a page on which you have a conflict of interest. I respect this. However, I do think if the page received attention and material was added by any good editor, it would be improved. The organisation has a long history and has been involved in a number of significant historical events, as well as being active today, so this would not be a vanity project. Is there any legitimate way to stimulate activity. I stress I am not trying to influence the ultimate content. Spiritofalba (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Spiritofalba: You are correct that it's frowned upon and often prohibited to edit if you have a conflict of interest. Being honest about this is the first step to getting mutually-agreeable outcomes. I'd recommend you post at the reward board. You can ask for an experienced editor to make these edits without offering anything of monetary value. If there is a specific WikiProject that would oversee said article, you can post at the talk page for that WikiProject so interested editors could pitch in. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, and thanks for being open with your WP:COI. One thing you can try (we´re all volunteers, so there´s no guarantee) is to gather the best WP:RELIABLE sources you can find on your charity, that you think could be useful for expanding the article, and post these with a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations (I must say I didn´t know about the reward board, I have no idea how "good" that works). Something of the best sources would be in-depth articles about your charity from well-known/respected newspapers/magazines. Sources connected to your charity have a very limited use. If you tell us what article this refers to you might be lucky and someone starts improving it right away (or think "this shouldn´t be on WP" and nominate it for deletion). You should also take a look at WP:PAID. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about New Page Patrolling and Review of New Pages:

Hi, I have been around Wikipedia for about a year but have just started to work with new page patrolling. I know there's a learning curve there, so want to make sure I get it right. Just to clarify: if the new page does not qualify for speedy deletion or PROD but still has some issues that need tags, should you then just leave the page marked unreviewed after you add the tags? (From what I've read, 'reviewed' means the page has no issues and needs no tags.) Thanks ABF99 (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ABF99. I am sorry that no one has answered you yet, and I do not feel confident about the answer. I am pinging an editor with expertise in new page patrolling. Kudpung, can you please comment? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The answers are all in WP:NPP, WP:CURATION, and WP:DELETION (or should be). In short however, adding tags will automatically mark the entry as patrolled. Unless you are a very experienced user looking for a special kind of page, the correct and default system to use for patrolling is Page Curation. Patrollers should also be sure to use the message feature to inform the creator of the tagging (this is only done automatically for deletion tags), otherwise the article will remain perma-tagged, possibly for many years. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. I wondered about this because using Page Curation I have noticed that pages that are marked 'not patrolled' there sometimes show up with tags already on them. --ABF99 (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This is because some users prefer not to use the new system we developed in 2011 and re still using the old page feed and Twinkle to tag the pages. The two systems are not compatible and cause confusion when viewing through through the interactive feed.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Or a reviewer may be using the new system to tag some issues and then use the page curation tool to mark the article as still not reviewed because not all items in the check list had been checked. Gab4gab (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Cant seem to be able to get my drafts past first base!

Last September I began drafting a document on Evidence Based programs, practices and policies. I have done several edits and was always not acceptable. Through several edits and l still cant seem to get past first base! Its rather discouraging. I have returned to it after several months. I need help some help. Can you help me? Sobemnwoko (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sobemnwoko, and welcome to The Teahouse! I assume we´re talking about Draft:Evidence-based organizations. Firstly, the draft has no sources whatsoever, and WP-articles need inline citations. Secondly, there is already a WP-article called Evidence-based management, and if that is basically the same topic, we shouldn´t have two articles. In that case you´re welcome to contribute to the existing article, but again, sources. Thirdly, your draft seems to be copypasted from here [1], and on Wikipedia, that´s an enormous no-no, for legal and other reasons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The draft should probaly be deleted because of the copyright violation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Gråbergs for your feedback. Thats very helpful. The book referenced is book my company published with the author and he knows about this. Also its definitely a different topic than Evidence-based management. Anyway I will begin from afresh with the article. Thanks again Sobemnwoko (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have two comments based on what you, User:Sobemwoko, say. First, the fact that the author of a book knows that information was copied from the book is not sufficient for Wikipedia to allow the copying of copyrighted information. It is a common misconception that copyrighted information, either the contents of a web site or the contents of a book, can be copied to Wikipedia if the copyright owner has approved it. Wikipedia's requirements for copyrighted material are much stricter than mere stated permission; we require that the copyright holder unconditionally release the copyright under a CC-BY-SA copyleft, and most copyright holders don't want to do that. Second, please read the conflict of interest policy. You appear to be stating one because your company is involved. It is too bad that I and we have to be discouraging, but Wikipedia has strict rules about copyrights and about conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

can someone just unilaterally delete a deletion suggestion?

I suggested a page for deletion due to lack of notability, but left it open for discussion. The original page creator just unceremoniously "undid" that, with no discussion whatsoever. What is the protocol in that situation? Rap7910 (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Rap7910: the deletion notice reads "the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." The page creator's action suggests that he was doubtful of the outcome of the discussion. I believe you were correct to restore the deletion notice. Maproom (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

'Kirez' just did it again - unilaterally undid the deletion suggestion. Rap7910 (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rap7910. I think glancing at the following pages in the following order will be useful:

1.    WP:WARN, and search the page for "Removing {{afd}} templates";
2.    {{Reportvandal}}; and then (as linked in that template)
3.    Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

COI Draft Submission Content Questions

The company I am employed by has asked me to create a Wikipedia article for them. I understand the conflict of interest involved and have inserted the appropriate COI disclosure on the draft page for the article. Wikipedia's apprehension with COI articles, understandably so, is clear with me however my intent is to fully adhere to the guidelines provided by Wikipedia to create an unbiased and notable article. Here is the draft: Draft:Puronics,_Inc.

I have submitted my article twice and it has been rejected twice by two different editors. I understood their problems with the content of the article regarding the tone and independent notability and agreed with their feedback. I have since tried to contact the specific editors with questions to their feedback with no response to the issues.

Concerning my specific question, I was wondering if my changes were adequate in ridding the content of tone issues and meeting the criteria for independent source notability for the company. I figured I would look for feedback on the article draft here in hopes to receive constructive criticisms or any other feedback to further the quality of the draft.

On a side note, is there any other disclosure I should make regarding the draft or is the template I placed sufficient?

I appreciate any review of the draft and feedback regarding my questions. Tpalum24 (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Tpalum24: I think you have overcome the problem with tone. But I don't think you have established notability, and I doubt you will. You could honestly tell your employer that they must have a more productive way of using your time and skill. Maproom (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Maproom: What disqualifies the sources I used as not establishing notability? I understand press releases and local news releases do not satisfy these criteria, I only used them for specific pieces of information. My thoughts were the article from NASA, Frost and Sullivan, and company profiles, from Bloomberg for instance, were substantial nation-wide sources that could satisfy the criteria.

For instance I look at a published content like Sun Water Systems, similar company to my draft, and I don't see any sources that would satisfy criteria and a very brief article.

Maybe my understanding is a little bit off on the notability guidelines and some clarification on the issue would be appreciated.

As regards to your comment on my employer should have a more productive way of using my time and skill, I agree. I'm a new-hire with a recently completed degree in finance and mathematics. However, I have enjoyed my time briefly acclimating myself to Wikipedia and admire it's accepting community. Do not worry though, this is not my only function/tasks within the company!

Tpalum24 (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The NASA article supports the claim about the silver ion technology, and is acceptable as a reference. But it does not mention Puronics, so can do nothing to establish the company's notability. The Frost and Sullivan reference is I think acceptable; but more than one reference is generally needed to establish notability. The Bloomberg reference establishes that the company exists; but what is needed is more evidence of notability. You are right about Sun Water Systems, I have proposed it for deletion. Maproom (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Maproom: Alright, that makes sense. Since the Bloomberg reference is just a company profile and not like the Frost and Sullivan article it does not help establish notability. I appreciate your help Maproom, thanks again.Tpalum24 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

changing a page name

I would like to change the page name of an article that is still in draft waiting for review. I'm not able to figure how to make this change in edit.CIUS (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Renaming a page is done by moving it. Is the page Draft:American Cochlear Implant Alliance Foundation? Move it and provide it with the new name that you want to give it? If the page in question is the sandbox, it contains only an infobox, and I copied the infobox to the draft, so I don't suggest doing anything to the sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@CIUS: you're right, this can't be done in the edit window. What you're looking for is to move the article from its current name to a new name (or address/location). This is an action that could potentially cause a lot of havoc, so new users would typically ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves or if comfortable with templates put Template:Requested move on the article (in the form {{subst:Requested move|NewName|reason=Why}}). However, since this is a brand new draft article which you wrote, I don't see there being any conflicts that might come from moving an established article. So I'd go with the simpler approach which is available to any user account with Autoconfirmed rights. You seem to have enough edits for that (10 edits over 4 days), though I'm not positive edits to Draft space are counted.

From your draft article Draft:American Cochlear Implant Alliance Foundation mouse up to the left of the search box and over a tab that says "More". If you have Autoconfirmed rights, it should show a single option, "Move". That will take you to another page to set up the move (I'm guessing you want to take "Foundation" out of the title). You can read Help:Moving a page and WP:MOVE for instructions, if needed. However, since it looks like you've submitted your draft for review, it might be best to wait for reviewers to respond rather than risk causing confusion.

BTW, that's the best draft I've seen in a while! - Reidgreg (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Depending on the skin in use, the "Move" option may be somewhere other than under "More". For me it's under the "Page" dropdown menu (to the right of "More"). --David Biddulph (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Can't get my page approved

I have been trying to get the Kimberly Ellis page up and have been unsuccessful so far. What can I do? Kglastimosa (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)KassandraKglastimosa (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. When you consider that the draft is ready for review, add {{subst:submit}}to the top of it. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kglastimosa. I took a look at your draft Draft:Kimberly Ellis, and have some concerns. As for the draft, most of the references do not establish notability as Wikipedia defines that term. They are not independent of Ellis since they are either controlled by her or by organizations she is affiliated with. What is needed are references to significant coverage of Ellis in reliable, independent (third party) sources. I suggest that you read our notability guideline for politicians. In my opinion, most experienced editors would conclude that Ellis does not meet that standard. Please also read Your first article for general advice. If you have any personal or professional connection with Ellis, please read and comply with our policy on Conflict of interest. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

New Article

Hello, I am looking for advice as to whether an article on a particular Aboriginal Language would be acceptable here, or if there is a better forum to create this on? I have an Elder who has translated his native tongue into English. Given all the recent articles in The Guardian newspaper on Aboriginal Languages & their importance, I thought this would be of interest to many. As well as individual words, the article would include some simple phrases for those wishing to try speaking the language. We could also include sound bites of the words being pronounced. This Elder has had his writings on his tribes history published & these texts also include some of the words. I would appreciate any advice. Kind regards, Linda Simpson Bpangerang (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bpangerang: If you can locate scholarly research on the language, it would make a great Wikipedia article. There isn't really anywhere on Wikipedia to host content that teaches users how to speak a language, though. That's best hosted on our sister project Wikiversity. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bpangerang: Just to echo NinjaRobotPirate, an article on the language would be a fantastic addition to Wikipedia. However, the specific material you mentioned would be better suited to some of our sister projects: you could upload the sound files to Wikimedia Commons, individual words to Wiktionary, texts to Wikisource and, if you were being ambitious, it could all be put together into a Wikibook for learning the language.

All that material could be used to enrich a Wikipedia article though, as NinjaRobotPiratean, the article itself would have to be based on existing published sources and avoid any original research. WikiProject Linguistics might be able to help you with that and any cross-wiki aspects of your project, so if it's something you're interested in I'd strongly encourage you to get in touch with them. Best of luck. Joe Roe (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, good ideas. I bet WikiProject Linguistics would be the best place to start. They'd probably know about all this stuff much better than someone like me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your wonderful suggestions. Sounds like I have a lot of work ahead of me & have never used Wikipedia before, so big learning curve. Thanks again, Linda Simpson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpangerang (talk • contribs) 02:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocking

Hi i am seeing a lot of users being blocked as sockpuppets and people making different fake accounts because their main account is blocked, will i simply be blocked?Please tell me.

Regards Dan Mathew (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you previously have a different account that has been blocked, or is this your first account? If you previously had a different account that has been blocked, you are engaging in sockpuppetry. If this is your first account, and I will assume that it is, you should not be in any danger of being blocked for sockpuppetry. If you engage in vandalism or make personal attacks, you may be blocked for that, but you can avoid those blocks by editing civilly and collaboratively. Don't worry about sockpuppetry unless you are a sockpuppet. Sockpuppets are only blocked when there is strong evidence against them. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

formatting for names of teams

I've come across a couple articles where the names of sports teams are given in italics, which seemed a little questionable to me. I read through MOS:ITALICS and didn't spot anything to justify this. Does Wikipedia have a style guideline for the names of sports teams? It seemed to me that word capitalization, like any other proper noun, would be sufficient emphasis. - Reidgreg (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC) (moved to top of page - Reidgreg (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

@Reidgreg: I think that your misgivings are justified. There's no reason to italicize the names of sports teams. If the names are in a language other than English, someone may have misinterpreted the guideline about italicizing words in foreign languages; but proper names are not italicized even if they're not English. I see a lot of misuse of italics on Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The correct way to cite Books and Newpaper articles?

Mt question is regarding footnotes for an art writer's biography; I have been working on the footnotes for hours and I don't think I have got them right - I am fairly new to Wikipedia!

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

I have been studying this how-two and am still in the dark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

There are several duplicate footnotes of a newspaper article in the Wikipedia article. I really would like to clean it up - know where the isbn numbers should be, etc.

Could an experienced editor be so kind as to look at footnotes # 1 (a newspaper article), and #3 (a website reference), #8 (a book), #13 (a magazine article) and #11 (a magazine article that is online in a pdf) and correct the coding I have done so as to present the correct footnote format to readers of this article?

I could then copy the right format and correct the article and know what to do for future articles.

Thank you! MusaVeneziana^(talk) 16:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi MusaVeneziana and welcome to the Teahouse. See Help:Referencing for beginners which includes a section on using references more than once. It is also not clear whether Muchnic is well-enough known for an article. That will depend not how much she has written, but how much has been written about her. Has she had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? See Wikipedia:Notability (people). StarryGrandma (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Confused with two actors who look same and acts in same movies

Christian Lees. His IMDB page is here.

Jonah Lees. His IMDB page is here. Bulletproof Batman (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the articles you linked to before coming here? I read the first one, Christian Lees. It says he is the identical twin brother of Jonah Lees. That is why they look similar. -- GB fan 11:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect and irrelevant information on the page about my father, Norrie Paramor

I don't understand how I can correct information about my father which is irrelevant or incorrect. It mentions his spouse as Gloria Brent. He had a very brief marriage to this lady which was annulled and I think he would be horrified that she is showing as his spouse. He married my mother on 3rd July 1943 and they were happily married until his death. During that time they had 3 children and I am the oldest child. Whoever provided this information needs to make sure that relevant and correct information is provided. There is also a line which I object to saying he died in relative obscurity in 1979 without recognition from any British institution. He is not a household name now but at the time of his death he was still relatively well known and tributes were paid by the BBC (one hour programme on radio), EMI (Full page tribute in New Musical Express) and SOS (Memorial Concert) He was also awarded a posthumous award for the most Number Ones by the Guinness Book of 500 Number Ones. I don't understand all the various bits about referencing and citation but as Norrie's daughter, I am upset by the page which contains inaccuracies, so much so, that I feel perhaps it should be deleted. The spouse bit is particularly upsetting for the family and is very poor research by whoever supplied that information. If anyone can help me to revise the page I would be very happy. Carolyn Ledingham (nee Paramor)Carrieledingham (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

At the time of your post, Norrie Paramor said: "Paramor was briefly married to actress Gloria Brent, a marriage which was annulled after a matter of months; he subsequently married Joan Margaret Jean Gerrard on 3 July 1943, a marriage which lasted until his death; they had three children Carolyn, Jane and John." This was the only mention of Gloria.

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

As someone with a close connection to the subject (WP:COI), we ask that you don´t edit the article directly, but you are welcome to suggest improvements on the articles talkpage, Talk:Norrie Paramor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding Pictures for Kaia Kanepi

Kaia Kanepi's 2014, 2015, and 2016 year has no pictures. I went to Wikimedia Commons to find pictures, but there are no pictures for those years. How do I find the right photo or how does someone find the photos to add for those years? Bryson483 22:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bryson483. Any photo you find must be freely licensed, in writing, in a form acceptable to Wikimedia Commons. Some photos on Flikr meet that standard, but you have to check carefully. Licenses that restrict commercial re-use are not acceptable.

Please be aware that there is no necessity to have a photo for every year of an athlete's career. Some editors may consider that a bit excessive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)