Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 592

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 585←Archive 590Archive 591Archive 592Archive 593Archive 594Archive 595

replacing an article with a new article

The article, and the new article, are about John Endecott, the founder of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1600's. The new article incorporates research that had not been available before. Also, the new article takes a skewed POV in the old article and leaves it more balanced. To me the article is clearly better than the previous article, and I am in no way connected to the subject.

My concern is that the article will be rejected by one of several people watching it. I don't know how to get around this barrier. One of the users names is Magic Piano.

Please help. Bfant (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Your concern is justified. I see from the article's history that you have already found it difficult to follow Wikipedia's policies, adding a large section of irrelevant material, and using references to "Ibid", to "[]", and to unpublished manuscripts. If you now delete an article which has "Good Article" status, the result of contributions by dozens of competent editors including Magicpiano, and replace it by your own work, I predict with confidence that your changes will be undone and the current version restored. If you believe that the article is unbalanced, you should say why on the article's talk page, and suggest how it could be improved. Maproom (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Just so it be clear, I am not opposed to the introduction of new material to the John Endecott article (or any other article), especially if there is new research that would unambiguously clarify things like his ancestry and birth. However, this research does need to appear in reliable sources; i.e. it needs to not be your own (or someone else's) unpublished research, and it should be focused on the man. If you have questions about specific language you would like to add or change, feel free to raise it at Talk:John Endecott. I try not to bite, but you should be prepared to engage the sources currently used in the article (in particular Anderson, whose work you are effectively questioning). Magic♪piano 00:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought The Tempest had Jason and Rebekah in it.more dots to come

I thought The Tempest had Jason and Rebekah in it. I was trying to print out the one I originally read for my social work205.154.246.130 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Your question is rather unclear; if you mean Shakespeare, see The Tempest#Characters.
But anyway, this page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. For general-knowledge type questions, please try the excellent Wikipedia:Reference desk. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Selkirk Transit Edit

Tender Occurs in March any Interested Bidders If so Edit the Page TheRileynator (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheRileynator. Can you please explain your intention in your edits to Selkirk Transit (which I have reverted), as well as explain what your message above means? It's quite unclear, at least to me. What is being "bid" on, and why would interest in bidding make editing the article appropriate? At least at the surface, it appears you are seeking to have people who want to buy something related to this topic, express their interest in bidding by editing the encyclopedia article. That is not an appropriate request for Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The user has been blocked as a sock, so, fuhghettaboutit, I guess. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Should reverts of substantive content normally be first discussed on Talk pages

(except for cases such as vandalism)? Humanengr (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Humanengr. Talk page discussion is not required before reverting, although it is often the best course of action, especially if you already know that the change will be controversial. You can remove unreferenced material if you are unable to find a reliable source to back up that content. In the case of contentious material about a living person, our policy on biographies of living people is clear. Such material should be removed immediately without discussion. Always keep in mind that improving the encyclopedia is the purpose of editing, and be prepared to discuss matters with any editor who disagrees with any of your reverts. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Another example is the removal of copyrighted material. In many cases, the material may be a material proportion of the entire article, but can be, in fact should be, removed immediately. God practice inlcudes identifying the source material in an edit summary, but opening a discussion on the talk page would be a bureaucratic nightmare.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
That said, I agree, absent some exceptions, that it is good practice, if not absolutely required, to open a discussion on the talk page prior to the removal of a significant amount of material.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Be bold, but not reckless. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

can i post an article on the following topics

1. Yogeshwar G. Kasture - an Indian inventor who has invented 'Chakka Jam Theory' and 'Indian Thought Process Analysis', the tools for channelization of human weaknesses. In this the article will be about the inventor.

2. Chakka Jam Theory - a tool for channelization of human weaknesses, in this article i will be writing about this theory, this theory has been published in an international journal 2 years back.

Capuneet (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Capuneet. The overarching rule for any subject which determines whether an article should be written about them, is that the subject should have received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This doesn't count unreliable sources like blogs, it doesn't count "trivial mentions," and it doesn't count things like pieces published by the subject/originator, or organizations they are closely tied to. It does however include non-English sources where no English sources of equal quality are available.
So whether a subject is appropriate for an article is almost always going to have to be decided on a case by case basis, and even then, decided not based on what the subject is per se, but rather what kind of sources are available. You may want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article for more in-depth guidance. TimothyJosephWood 12:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I searched for them on Google, and found nothing about Yogeshwar Kasture, and very little about Chakka Jam Theory. That's a bad sign. I might have missed things, or there might be offline sources (newspapers, books), or there might be sources in another language. But as far as I can tell, right now, they would not pass the basic requirements. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

name pronounciations and IPAc's

How do we add an IPAc for names that are hard to pronounce like for example the artists Mayuka Thaïs & Kunimi Andrea? Songuitar333 (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!!Songuitar333 (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Songuitar333, and welcome! For English (or possibly if the artists use anglicised pronunciations of their names?), see Help:IPA for English. The definitive overall guidance is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. Hope that helps, Pelagic (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you!!

Songuitar333 (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. What's the difference between IPA and IPAc? Pel.
@Pelagic: There are two different templates, called {{IPA-en}} and {{IPAc-en}}. They're very similar, it's a technicality, and really not important. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a log of pages reviewed by me?

I know there are CSD logs, and AfD logs, but is there a log somewhere (either userfy like CSD)part of Wikipedia, or on WMFtools? Thanks. L3X1 (distant write) 00:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: Yup. Yours is here. (To find the logs for any particular user, go to their user/usertalk/contributions -> click logs in the tool section of the sidebar -> select 'review log' from the dropdown -> click 'show') AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
AddWittyNameHere Thanks! I was actually looking for the Page Curation log, and am now wondering why Wikipedia has a review log, when it appears that everytime I edit a mainspace page it gets "reviewed" by myself automatically.L3X1 (distant write) 00:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, at least you found what you were looking for now, yes? Review seems to be tied to Pending changes. Seems like the log is somehow treating every page not under pending changes to be at some sort of PC-0 level or such; PC-1 is mere (auto)-confirmed status needed to auto-approve your own edits; and PC-2 was repeatedly strongly rejected by the community... Not the most useful log for en.wiki purposes, I suppose, especially if done this way. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC) EDIT: Remove typo'd ping, re-add L3X1 & re-signing. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)

@L3X1: You have the Autoreviewed user right, which is granted to accounts over 3 months old with 100 edits. It helps people patrolling recent changes to easier identify vandals. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! L3X1 (distant write) 00:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think "Autoreviewed" is really something people get. 86.20.193.222, only new page reviewers may actually mark pages as patrolled. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@MRD2014: Special:UserRights/L3X1 ? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I see. I was just clarifying that you need new page reviewer and not "autoreviewed" to mark pages as patrolled/reviewed. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Quite true. Sorry for any confusion.86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason that I have to hand accept a lot of my PCR reverts now? I used to only have to do it once in a while, but in the past 10 I had to accept 5 of my own edits. I also got to patrol a few AfDs, I saw the link at the bottom L3X1 (distant write) 02:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that's because of "known problems" with PC in general.86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Assessing an article one created themselves

Possibly a dumb question, but in chasing down some changes to biographical articles, I found another editor who creates many biographies of athletes, and once they are done editing, sets the assessment on the article (typically to level C) themselves. Now over in Wikiproject Biography it says in the assessment FAQ, quote: "Anyone can rate a biographical article, but if you revised an article enough to change its potential rating, or if you have a conflict of interest, someone else should review it." It seems wrong to me to create an assessment on an article you yourself created, how could you possibly be objective about it? I thought I would bring it up with this editor on their talk page but I wanted to ask here first. Is this common practice? Am I missing something? Thanks. --Krelnik (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Krelnik. Lots of individual WikiProjects have their own guidance for assessment, and while it's probably ideal that these are followed as closely as possible, in practice, the only classes that are terribly important most of the time are WP:GA and WP:FA, since these have a highly formalized review process, can qualify for special statuses like being WP:TFA, and have a process for demotion if they fall below the accepted standard.
Besides that, everything between start and B class is highly subjective. Although criteria has been fairly formalized (see WP:ASSESS), the actual application can vary widely, and there's no process for demotion if an article no longer meets the quality assessment. There's also no real special status or even requirement for ordered progression, meaning you can nominate a completely unassessed article for GA as well as you can a B class article.
So overall, I wouldn't sweat it too much. Most readers barely look at a talk page anyway, and most editors don't pay much attention to the intermediate classes. TimothyJosephWood 19:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I wasn't concerned about the actual assessments being applied, just the false impression given to an average reader that this article has been assessed when in fact it was self-assessed by the only person who ever edited it. Incidentally you don't have to visit the talk page to see the assessment, there's a gadget any logged-in user can turn on that will display the article assessment right under the title of the article. When I give workshops on editing and using Wikipedia, I recommend users turn this on so they can see the quality rating of the article right as they start reading it. (It's under Gadgets > Appearance "Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header"). --Krelnik (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know that I would really recommend that. I can't find it right now for the life of me, but I could've swore there was an independent evaluation of the rating system that had pretty poor overall results as far as consistency goes. It's probably somewhere obscure on Meta: or something. TimothyJosephWood 20:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, well consistency is not likely to improve if everyone is assessing their own work, now, is it? Ah well. Thanks for the replies! Have a good rest of your day. --Krelnik (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Krelnik: The real problem IMO is visibility, and therefore accountability. Ratings below GA are in the thousands probably weekly if not daily, and mostly go unnoticed, while ratings of GA and FA are much much smaller in number, and posted on central noticeboards where experienced editors are aware, and if someone is grossly out of line with the standards, they can be removed from the pool of reviewers. Logistically, that's simply impossible to do with lower ratings unless our pool of contributors were many many times that which it currently is.
Moreover, many editors simply don't care about the other ratings, which makes them unreliable. For example, an article I wrote basically solo, Baltimore railroad strike of 1877, is currently up for GA review, but is rated C class. I don't personally care about getting B class because I know it doesn't particularly matter. Readers using your tool would assume that it is then currently a so-so article, but it will likely very soon jump to the top 0.5% of the best articles on the project.
Finally, more than half the articles on the project are currently rated as stubs. Some of that is probably because they are, and some of that is probably because no one has ever bothered to re-review them. TimothyJosephWood 21:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Krelnik. As previously discussed, only Good articles and Featured articles get a systematic peer review. On the other end of the spectrum , we have many articles rated as stubs which are actually significantly better than stubs. I will re-rate informative, useful articles from stub to start without any hesitation, especially if I have expanded and added references to the article. I see nothing wrong with involved editors upgrading stubs, since no one else is likely to do so. I encourage you to do so as well. I believe quite strongly that a useful, informative article with at least two or three solid references should not be rated as a stub. I have been editing for almost eight years, and care very little about the distinctions between Start, C and B class articles. Effort spent assessing these mid range articles would be better spent improving them, in my opinion, and taking them through the Good article process when appropriate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

East High School, Anchorage, Alaska

I was checking East High School in Anchorage, Alaska and it says it was established in 1954. It was established in 1961. I have lived in Anchorage, AK since 1953 and my brother was in the first graduating class of East High. Can this be corrected?

Thank You Linda Miller 24.237.53.27 (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, 24 etc. Welcome to the Teahouse. This really isn't the place for your request. We answer questions on how to edit Wikipedia. So I'll tell you how to get some action on your request. First, the nature of an encyclopedia is we don't write about a given subject such as this school, we write about what is written about the subject. So in order to change the information a reliable source would be needed. That shouldn't be too hard to find as newspapers are reliable and the opening of a new school is definitely something a newspaper would cover. So if you find a published source, you can post to Talk:East Anchorage High School requesting the change be made. Or perhaps even better, just change the article with the source as a reference. I can't emphasize enough though that no matter how certain you are of the accuracy of your knowledge, you cannot use that as a basis for an edit. John from Idegon (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

nominating articles for merger or deletion

I found the article City Farm and started editing but the content doesn't seem different from Urban Agriculture, which is a much more comprehensive article. Doing some research outside of wikipedia "city farm" doesn't seem to be a different type of urban agriculture. How do I nominate an article to be reviewed for merger or deletion? Red 00 (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Red 00. Merger is what you need here. The procedure is detailed at WP:PAM. As both of these articles have been around for a while, I'd say this would be a type 3 merger. The page I've directed you to is very detailed and seems clear and easy to follow, so my suggestion would be to take a look and come back if you need any clarification. I'd agree with you that Urban agriculture should probably be the target article. John from Idegon (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, John from Idegon. I will bookmark the merger instruction page for the future and see about the level 3 merger for city farm and urban ag! Red 00 (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is a photograph better than a painting?

I am just curious, and after searching Help, Teahouse and specific article talk pages, I can't find an answer to this question. I understand that a photo is more realistic than a painting, generally. But if (strictly hypothetically) my choice is only between a painting of someone smiling with their family and a photo of the person alone, on their death bed, I'm going to pick the former. No one cites a Wikipedia rule or best practice, so is it just a matter of opinion? RM2KX (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, bad example, because pictures should be only of individuals. But the point is that the painting is pleasant and the photo is not. RM2KX (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, RM2KX. You may find some guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. In most cases, we want a freely licensed or public domain image. Obviously, we use paintings of people who died before the invention of photography. In my opinion, if a freely licensed painting is clearly superior to a freely licensed photo, then use the painting or use both. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It actually isn't anything I'm doing, but a couple of discussions I've been watching. RM2KX (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey RM2KX. One of the problems with photos is that they are often overall of poorer quality than paintings, since paintings are likely to have been well preserved, and photographed with modern equipment. Compare this image I recently added to Tour de France. Not only is it black and white, but there is a lot of damage there, and actually if you check the image it derives from it's literally taken from a scan of someone's old photo album.
But overall, image choice is one of the most subjective parts of making an article, and not only least governed in detail by policy, but least governable in that regard, since so much of it boils down to personal preference. TimothyJosephWood 22:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen328 and TimothyJosephWood! That's what I was wanting to know. Specifically, 1) I've been watching Harry Truman's infobox image going back and forth between a photo and painting, and 2) I asked a question a while ago about Andrew Jackson's image on the edit-protected List of Presidents of the United States that no one has ever responded to. *shrug* RM2KX (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's only semi-protected, so I could edit it myself, I think, but... I'm not ready to do that one yet as it would probably be reverted. RM2KX (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
RM2KX: Ah, see US government officials, at least in the age of photography, are special, since they have "official photos" which are produced by the federal government, and are therefore in the public domain. Basically anything unclassified produced by a federal employee in the course of their job are available to the public and therefore usable on Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 22:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Broad rules like this would apply if other factors were equal, but they never are, so it's always an editorial judgment call. I sometimes replace a bad photo with a good drawing that I found in Wikimedia Commons, and haven't met much disagreement. When editors disagree on this or other questions, it's something to hash out in Talk Page. Unfortunately, they sometimes support an opinion by inventing a rule, or by simply slandering dissenters. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello RM2KX. Please note that List of Presidents of the United States is a semiprotected article, which cannot be edited by unregistered IP editors or those with very new accounts. But your account is autoconfirmed so you can edit that article as you see fit. This is especially true since you expressed your concern on the article talk page months ago. Go ahead and change the image if you want. I take your point that the photo shows Andrew Jackson in the frail final year of his life and does not show him at "the top of his game". So, maybe the painting is a better choice. On the other hand, it is an important historical image since it is among the very earliest photos of a former U.S. president. I think it should be in Andrew Jackson in the section about his final years. In the case of Harry Truman, a Featured article, we have many excellent color photos and at least one excellent painting to choose from. Making a major change to a Featured article without consensus is a bad idea. I have a hard time seeing how a painting should be the lead image for an article about a mid 20th century American president who was photographed so widely. I have no problem including the painting elsewhere in the article. The proper place to discuss this issue is the article talk page, not in edit summaries, and I see no discussion on the talk page. So, make the change in the first case, and discuss on the talk page in the second case. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Excellent advice. Thanks again! RM2KX (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a handy tool on the AfD entry for an article I've been working on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Viola_Wyse) that offers channels for finding references for the article:

news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Is there a way to get this tool for other articles or stubs? This seems like it would be useful at the beginning of an article or stub development, in addition to on the deletion page. Maybe it is easy to add in to any article, and I just didn't know it.

Advice or feedback welcome!

Thanks Shameran81 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shameran81: Hi, yes, there is.
The code to make that happen is, {{find sources|ARTICLE TITLE}}, for example, I'll put below {{find sources|Ashley's Sack}}

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

You can put that on the talk page of the article, if you like. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Shameran81: Search links should not be added to stubs or articles. You can add {{find sources}} to an unsubmitted draft if you remove it before submitting. It produces an error message in articles but can be added to talk pages. If you omit |ARTICLE TITLE then the name of the page is automatically used. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Special Contributor: and @PrimeHunter: for the quick responses and code. Shameran81 (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah there is

Need help creating a page

I want to create a page but there isn't any red letter link when i type what i want to make a page out of into the search engine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Eckelkamp (talk • contribs) 10:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kevin Eckelkamp: Hi, welcome.
Please try WP:WIZARD, which will guide you through the process.
Good luck, and please don't hesitate to ask for more help, any time. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Trouble linking to a subsection of a main article

I got advice yesterday on how to do this but my attempted fix is not taking. For the link I tried North American fur trade#Metis people but the brackets don't take and the link just goes to the main article, not to the subsection.

I am brand new as a "Wikipedian" (I like the sound of that by the way, reminds me of Olympian!) I have been using the visual editor as the source editor language is unfamiliar and daunting.

If you could also point me in the direction of information about how to post photos, that will be my next and last step before asking for review.

Lovely community here. Thanks.Silver Water (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You forgot the acute accent on the e of Métis. Try North American fur trade#Métis people. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Silver Water: For the photos, please scroll up this page a bit to #adding photos/iimages, and see if that gives enough pointers. Ask again otherwise. Cheers, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah... @David Bilddulph. Thank you so much. Now the link works. It just didn't occur to me that the acute accent would make so much difference. After multiple tries of a variety of options, it is finally linking exactly where I want it to. Thank you so much!

I can explore how to add photos now.

Thank you again for your brief and clear instructions.Silver Water (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I link to a subsection of a main article in Wikipedia?

I have already linked to the main article, North American Fur Trade, and would like to link a little later to 8.1 Metis People, but so far can only link again to the main article. Can you help? Thank you.

The help is so fantastic here that I am really enjoying the process of preparing this piece on Eugene Oregon history.Silver Water (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. You create such a link the same way as you would a link to the main article, except that you add #name of section after the article title. For example, [[Paralobesia viteana]] creates Paralobesia viteana, a 'normal' link, whereas [[Paralobesia viteana#Description]] creates Paralobesia viteana#Description, a link to the 'Description' section of said article. As such links look fairly awkward, you are generally best off piping such links. (Like I did for the previous link: [[WP:Piped link|piping such links]] produced piping such links). See also WP:ANCHOR. :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. Just in case: the nowiki-tags seen in the edit view are just so the examples show up properly on reading-view; it's the code visible when reading you should use. :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, AddWittyNameHere. I am still having trouble with this as I don't understand "editor source" speak. I have posted another follow-up question, but re-reading what you have written I have a new idea about how to make the changes stick and will try that right now.Silver Water (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Silver Water: Basically, you have the text that appears on the page when you read it. (AKA "reading view") That should show a bunch of [[ ]] and such in my examples above. Normally those would not show up because their function is to make a link. To get them to show for you when looking at my answer here at the Teahouse, I had to add <nowiki></nowiki> around them. Those are also called nowiki-tags. However, because the function of nowiki-tags is to stop various bits and pieces of wikipedia syntax from doing their jobs, it would stop any link you make from working if you accidentally copied the nowiki-tags along with the example mark-up. Whether or not you're likely to copy those along depends on whether you try to copy from what you see when looking at the page ("reading view") or whether you first start editing the page and then try to copy them ("edit view", which is further complicated because there are—among other more niche options—both a What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get wiki-text editor out there, called VisualEditor, and a Show-All-The-Mark-Up wiki-text editor, usually called the 'source editor', 'wikitext editor', 'oldschool editor' or similar--and those result in pretty different "edit views").
As to your new question, another editor has already answered. You were doing everything right, except that you missed a diacritic in the name of the section, resulting in you trying to link to a non-existent section (because there is no section called Metis people in North American fur trade, just one called Métis people) (Had you tried to link to a section that didn't have any diacritics, though, your link would have worked) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@AddWittyNameHere Thank you for your explanations. The link is now fixed! Source editor continues to humble me but I think it is getting somewhat clearer with the explanations that you and others have offered. Thank you.Silver Water (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Silver Water: You're welcome! I'm glad to hear so. Wiki-markup (the whole shebang of 'fancy stuff' like references, categories, links and wikilinks and section headers and such) can be a bit of a steep learning curve; you'll eventually get used to it, though. :) If you have any other questions, never hesitate to ask them. We've all had to learn one way or another—no one is born knowing wiki-markup. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Editors working together???

I recently observed two editors communicating this on their Talk page (See quote below). Can I do this too? Can I implicitly invite other editors to go to certain pages? Can I implicitly invite them to remove certain edits?

Quote:"Sungenis et al.

Thanks for your help. If you feel so inclined, there are also a lot of primary-sourced bits at Michael Voris's BLP which we might find to remove. End QuoteTachyon1010101010 (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tachyon1010101010. This is a collaborative project and it is completely appropriate to openly communicate with fellow editors encouraging improvement of various articles. It is not appropriate, though, to form organized factions of editors to push a specific point of view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely! 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

reverting a revert

Someone reverted my edit on a highly contentious page. Subsequent to that, at my prompting, there was substantial discussion both there and at a noticeboard on a particular issue. Though that issue was seemingly resolved, another was identified though no detail was provided. That later topic was explored back on the article talk page, where it seems there was no substance (AFAICS) to it. I can attempt to obtain a 'consensus', but strongly doubt that the objectors will participate to any significant degree, much less with anything but diversion, and much less agree. So, at this point, my question is what is the proper procedure for effecting a revert of the revert? Humanengr (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Humanengr. Achieving consensus is the fundamental technique we use to improve and expand articles on contentious topics. Discussing proposed changes on the article talk page is, for all practical purposes, mandatory. Make your best case there, referring to reliable sources plus Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If that is not successful, follow our various dispute resolution procedures. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thx -- the issue at hand is the question of whether there is a still a dispute (if not, so I can revert a revert). In the moment I have opted for Third Opinion on that point, have notified the other party, and am awaiting … Humanengr (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
If someone reverts you without being a troll or a vandal, there is by definition a dispute, and it should be taken to the talk page in first instance. See also Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus#What_does_not_constitute_silence. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I initiated discussion on the talk page several days ago; it went from there to a noticeboard and back with extensive discussion. The objections were expressed in general terms with no specific justifications despite my repeated requests for such. One of the objectors turned up after my original post in this thread, and so it now stands awaiting Third Opinion on whether there is a dispute. Humanengr (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Which noticeboard should be used for disputes regarding UNDUE? It's unclear from extensive discussions to-date which aspect of UNDUE might be in question. Thx Humanengr (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: It's usually best to keep all of the discussions on the talk page of the article, all in one place. You can post on noticeboards and ask for participation, pointing to that discussion. If the discussion gets split over several locations, it can be very difficult for people to follow.
The usual noticeboards to ask for input on UNDUE would be WP:RSN and, for living people, WP:BLPN.86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Creating a page help

Hello,

My name is Sara and I am the Public Relations Manager for Plant Therapy Essential Oils. I was hoping to create a Wikipedia page for our company but I am unsure what category "Essential Oils" should be under or how to go about creating this new page.

Thank you!

SaraBuddecke (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SaraBuddecke. You have done the right thing in disclosing your conflict of interest, both here at the Teahouse, and on your user page. Please be aware that it is very difficult for a new editor to write an acceptable encyclopedia article about their employer. Begin by reading our notability guideline for organizations and companies. Then, read and study Your first article. Both emphasize the importance of providing references to significant coverage of a company in reliable, independent sources. By far your most important step is to assemble a list of this coverage. If that type of coverage of your company does not exist, then the company is not eligible for a Wikipedia article. Use the Articles for Creation process, so that a draft you write is reviewed by experienced, uninvolved editors before being added to the encyclopedia. Summarize what the range of reliable, independent sources say about the company. Do not include any trace of advertising or promotional language, and this is difficult for someone like you who is paid to make your company look good. The article must be written from the neutral point of view. Feel free to return to the Teahouse with specific questions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

concerning valid resources

The article for Min-on Concert Association was approved but reviewer said it needed independent, credible resources. Here are the current footnotes—not sure what is wrong with them:

  • 1 http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110904/ent/ent2.html
  • 2 Fowler, Jeaneane Fowler, Merv (2008). Chanting in the hillsides: Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism in Wales and the Borders. Brighton: Sussex Academic. ISBN 978-1845192587...
  • 3 Seager, Richard Hughes (2006). Encountering the Dharma : Daisaku Ikeda, Soka Gakkai, and the globalization of Buddhist humanism. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520245778.
  • 4 Machacek, David; Wilson, Bryan (2003). Global citizens: The Soka Gakkai Buddhist movement in the world (Reprinted. ed.). Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 9780199240395.
  • 5 Laurence, Felicity; Urbain, Olivier (2011). Music and solidarity questions of universality, consciousness, and connection. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 9781412847841.
  • 6 "About the Competition". Tokyo International Competition for Conducting. Min-on Concert Association.
  • 7 Palmer, Arvin (1971). Buddhist Politics: Japan's Clean Government Party. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. p. 10. ISBN 9789401029964.

Stgrlee16 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stgrlee16. The reference from the group's own publication does not establish notability, since it is not independent. Several of your references are to books issued by university and academic publishers. In general, such books are considered the highest quality of reliable sources. The question is whether these books provide significant coverage of Min-on Concert Association, or are they passing mentions? You can include one or two sentence quotes from the sources, providing evidence that the coverage is significant. Include page numbers in your reference. Coverage that extends over several pages is evidence of significant coverage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

is there a code for efn's simlar to <ref name=whatever/>

Hi again folks! I know how to name a reference and simply insert <ref name=whatever/> into an article. I know how to use {{efn|statement}}, what I don't know is if there is a way to name an efn and use it repeatedly, easily, like a repetitively cited named reference. Do any of you know if this is possible? As always, thanks very much. DennisPietras (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: Yup, you just use name=, see [1]. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi DennisPietras. Yes, efn uses |name= and |group=. See Help:Footnotes#Template use by reference group type, the last example in that section. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you to both! Great answers, and now I understand why some efn's end up being numbered instead of lettered! Why anybody would go out of their way to confuse readers by using numbered efn's and numbered ref's is syill a mystery to me, however! DennisPietras (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Request feedback on article draft

My first article is in draft mode, I'd like to request feedback if it is ready to go live. There are 2 sources quoted in which one editor indicated they were not reliable sources. He also indicated I was "quoting a little too heavy." That said I was thinking I should just take those 2 online sources off and it would be acceptable and balanced. They are online blog articles from credible publications/organizations. Another editor stated I have properly shown the artists notability. Thank you for your time and feedback.Ktlnlindler (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ktlnlindler: The notability looks fine, so it should be acceptable. It's definitely very quote-heavy; for a start, I'd remove The award "honors a lifelong dedication... because that's info about the award, it's not info about the subject of the article. In general, try to use your own words instead of quoting so much - so you could say it's their lifetime award or highest award (if it is), but not their quoted blurb about it.
Remove the non-neutral/weasel word the groundbreaking Working South. I'd reduce the quotes by about half. It would look better if you split it into about 2 or 3 paragraphs. Add an {{infobox person}}.
But all of that is just prettying it up, it's perfectly acceptable; if you're feeling bold, you could move it to a live article yourself on the 18th, when your account is 4 days old - I doubt very much it'd be in danger of deletion. Or submit it and wait a bit longer for a reviewer.
Oh and, I'm not sure about those blogs; your call. You could ask on WP:RSN if they're acceptable as RS or not. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Wdlcome to the Teahouse, Ktlnlindler. I agree that the artist is notable and eligible for a Wikipedia article, and also that your use of quotations is excessive. I like using quotes in my articles, but I am careful to select quotes that include some uniquely colorful and insightful language that cannot be conveyed in neutral language summarizing the source that you write yourself. I endorse the suggestion of cutting the quotations in half. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle editing tests

Hello. Just a quick question, what is 'editing tests' under twinkle's warn menu? Can I have an example too? Thanks! 09:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Requiem II (talk • contribs)

Hi Requiem II, welcome to the Teahouse. Twinkle displays the name of the used templates. The description "Editing tests" is at {{uw-test1}}, {{uw-test2}} and {{uw-test3}}. Twinkle also has a "Preview" link you can use without saving. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

specifics about article

hi i'm new on wiki.i want to know few things about publishing an article / page.

1. how to publish a page or article without any mistake ? 2. if i write about a person can i copy the texts about him from his personal website, like his bio?

thank youIsbat raihan (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, @Isbat raihan:, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added some links to basic guidance pages on your user talkpage. Please have a look, and feel free to come back here anytime if you are stuck and need more assistance. Creating an article can be difficult for new editors. When you are new to Wikipedia, editing other articles first and making smaller corrections and additions might be a good idea to get some experience with Wikipedia's formatting and content guidelines. But that's just a suggestion - if you want to try an article right away, see How to create your first article for a good overview. To your second question: texts from a person's personal website should generally not be copied for two reasons. Such content is copyrighted and cannot be used without the copyright owner's explicit permission. And, even if the owner grants permission, such content is usually not neutral enough to be used within an encyclopedic article and it may not be reliable. Valid limited usage of "self-published" sources is detailed at WP:SPS, but such content needs to be phrased in your own words. GermanJoe (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

hi thank you for quick response @GermanJoe. before i try to publish something can you tell me if i do any mistake when publishing a page,can you advise me to fixed the exact issue if it gets rejected somehow?Isbat raihan (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Isbat raihan:, please sign your message only once at the end of your post. Signatures in edit summaries or elsewhere are not needed - and confuse the formatting :). To your question: when you follow the step-by-step guidance at Wikipedia:Your first article, it includes a link to use Wikipedia:Articles for creation. "Articles for creation" (or AfC) is a process, where other editors will review your draft article before it is getting "published" (moved) in main space. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Article Rejected, please advise

Trying to prepare article for new professional athlete. Pro contract pending. I want to keep article as draft and launch once contract is signed. Not sure what specifics to avoid rejection. Advice needed. Thanks! JoeTooSerious (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The short answer is that you should read Wikipedia:Your first article, but more details follow.
For any Wikipedia article, you must demonstrate the subject is "notable", i.e. that independent sources have published non-trivial stuff about them. In particular, WP:NFOOT describes the conditions under which a football professional is deemed notable. Please note that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability: if the subject is not notable (at least yet), the article will get rejected.
If the article passes notability muster, it will be kept, but some sentences will not (you should not negociate a contract stating that sentence X will be kept, because you never have any guarantee for that). For instance, ...is a tough player with good field vision, takes full advantage of his 6’2” frame with reliable aerial game etc. fall under WP:PEACOCK and will be removed. TigraanClick here to contact me 18:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I think they might mean a contract for the soccer player, not for the editor. Lectonar (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I did read WP:PAID and I am a volunteer.
I did read WP:FOOT too and I thought signing a professional contract would qualify.
Admittedly, I skimmed WP:PEACOCK too quick initially and I see where I can delete words and phrases that fall into the 'peacock' category.
I hope I can address WP:PEACOCK issues and the subject would qualify under WP:NFOOT by signing a pro contract.
Or am I pushing a boulder up a steep mountain here?JoeTooSerious (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@JoeTooSerious: NFOOT says "playing in fully professional leagues", which may not be the same as "is a professional player". Admittedly I am a bit out of my depth here to tell where that particular case falls. Maybe you could ask at WT:FOOTY? TigraanClick here to contact me 11:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your responses. They help me (as a newbie) to better understand the process. The subject has played in two professional games (Scotland & Czech Republic) and as of 9pm tonight, will have signed a professional contract and will be paid to play full time for all of 2017 (Arp-Nov) in a fully recognized professional league sanctioned by the USUSA. Unless I'm missing something, I've satisfied WP:PAID, WP:FOOT and WP:PEACOCK. If you see anything that is suspect, please let me know and I will edit. Thanks again! JoeTooSerious (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

adding info

Dear all, Apologies, I'm a newcomer and unexperienced. I added a name of a Dutch female architect (not being myself) - Susanne Komossa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_architects

The system automatically generated a hyperlink on the name 'Susanne Komossa' and add information to the page. To make the info as complete as possible I added a draft text (unexperienced I saved the text).

Q1: is it prefered to add information about Susanne Komossa in the separate wiki page or can I just leave this blanc? And if the latter is prefered, how do I delete the text which I have now? Q2: The text about Susanne Komossa should not personal. Can I include a hyperlink linking info to the university page of Susanne Komossa or is this considered subjective? SusanNG (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SusanNG. The article you wrote, Susanne Komossa, has been nominated for speedy deletion. You must take quick action to add references to independent, reliable sources that show that this person meets our notability guideline for creative professionals. You may find Your first article to be helpful reading. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

working on multiple drafts at once

Hi,

I am a new editor and participating in the Women in Red Archeology Task Force. I am currently working on the Archeology Redlist. I believe it may be more efficient for me to be working on a few archeologist drafts at a time.

I don't see any way of doing that with my one sandbox/draft area, unless I work on all the drafts in the sandbox. Please advise on the best way to work on multiple drafts.

Thanks MauraWen (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse MauraWen The safest way to work on draft articles is with the WP:AFC process so you could call your sandbox draft Draft:Helen Thomas Waterhouse for instance and create as many other drafts as you wish and they would be safe from speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
You could also create multiple sandboxes, with names like User:MauraWen/xxyyzz. If you click on that link, you will reach a "non-existent page", but as soon as you type content into it, and click "Save", it will exist. Maproom (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
A good way of doing it is, to edit your user page (which is User:MauraWen), and put links to pages like these;

== My Sandboxes ==

* [[User:MauraWen/Sandbox one]]

* [[User:MauraWen/Sandbox two]]

* [[User:MauraWen/Something else]]

The *'s make bullet-points. The names can be anything you like. Then when you click on "User" to see your user page, you'll have links to create and edit as many sandbox pages as you like. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Good user page

Can you say how to make a good user page? Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adityavagarwal. There is some advice at WP:UP about what you can an cannot have on your userpage, so it's worth reading through there first. We do have a User page design center, which contains various graphical codes you can use, or you can just pick a user whose userpage you like and copy the pertinent bits. As long as you comply with WP:UP, you can pretty much do what you like! Yunshui 雲水 13:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Top tip, find a nice one and copy it. I mean, not entirely 'copy', but you can steal their code, changing pictures or whatever. Click on a few more experienced users - like user:Yunshui, above - to get ideas. Then "steal" them :-) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC) I mean, it'd be nice to say "I stole your idea, hope you don't mind..." but nobody ought to object too much.
Yeah, I would "steal" them :). Also, the userpages of user:Yunshui and many people are not colourful. :P I remember seeing a few really decorative userpages, so if you find any, can you say to me too? Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I've had several people copy the scrolly bar thing on mine, and I don't mind. I stole it from somebody else anyway...☺ White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it does not even matter right? Atleast the userpage looks good. I was anyways planning to take user:Timothyjosephwood, his style of writing signatures. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that page really had quite a bit. I knew much of them, however, from the questions asked by others. :D Yeah, I can just grab a userpage and stick it on my userpage, that would be a cool idea. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Adityavagarwal, see also Wikipedia:User page design center. Unfortunately we don't seem to have something similar for signatures. Also, the problem with my own signature is that the markup for it is so long, that I don't have room to include links to both my talk and user pages. I plan on fixing that eventually, but I haven't yet. TimothyJosephWood 14:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, thank you so much for the link. :) Also, I guess I should leave the plan for now. :P After the markup thing is done, then it might be a good idea. :D Also, yeah, the html included for the font thing is a lot by you. That looks nice. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: I like a challenge. I think you can wrap a div around it, to avoid duplicating the font part. So, two linkys;

<div style="font-family:Impact;">[[User:Timothyjosephwood|<span style="color:#a56d3f;">Timothy]]</span><span style="color:#6f3800;">Joseph</span>[[User talk:Timothyjosephwood|<span style="color:#422501;">Wood]]</span></div>

224 characters; your current sig with one link is 210. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey thanks. Done and done. In my defense, I learned HTML before 4.0 was ever released. 17:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources in diffrent languages

Is it okay to cite sources written in a different language than the article or should try to find another sources written in english? ProjectSaver (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi ProjectSaver and welcome to the Teahouse. Foreign language sources are perfectly fine to use. If the same source in both English and another language, then it's recommended to use the English version, but otherwise just use the foreign language source. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Changing the performance of a hydraulic cylinder with a valve built in the cylinder's piston.

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT A HYDRAULIC CYLINDER: a hydraulic cylinder extends or retracts at a speed where the pressurized oil supplied fills the expanding chamber of the cylinder. The oil is usually supplied by a fixed volume pump. This results in the cylinder's piston moving at the same slow speed (but with full available force) when acting a light or heavy load.

A cylinder with my piston valve extends faster against a light load, and then automatically changes to its slower speed, with full force capability. The numerical ratio of the piston area, divided by the piston rod area, is the same ratio between the faster speed and the slow, high force speed. I have built cylinders with ratios of 6, 8.5, 9.5, and 18.

When I use one of my cylinders in a press, since the oil can flow easily through the piston, I've found that a modest spring force can quickly return the piston to its starting position.

There is, in written hydraulic text books, on the subject of hydraulic cylinder regeneration-circuits, a circuit which is similar in principal to my piston valve cylinder. The difference is that their valve and piping are located outside of the cylinder. My valve and hole through the piston are located in the cylinder. The pressure drop resulting from the regenerative oil flow in my cylinder(passing through the piston) is much less than the pressure drop in other circuit where the oil must flow around the outside of the cylinder. The large pressure drop causes many problems in the external valve model.

QUESTION?; Is this subject suitable for me to write an article for Wikipedia? Any advice or help would be appreciated.

I have had difficulty describing this subject. I still have my old shop where i developed and made my cylinders. I have some cylinders which will operate. I have made some amateurish cam cord video, and I am learning to use a drawing program on my computer.

Little john 31 Little john 31 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Howdy, @Little john 31:. Sorry to say, that is not suitable for a Wikipedia article, because we don't allow original research. As an encyclopaedia, we only cover subjects that have already been extensively written about by other "reliable sources".
Unless your invention gets published in books and/or discussed in newspapers, it would fail our notability guidelines.
However, I hope you are not put off; with your knowledge, I'm sure you'd be a great help e.g. at WikiProject Engineering. Just make sure any edits you make are supported by a reliable source, and not your own knowledge. Cheers, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Little john 31. Wikipedia only includes articles about topics which are notable, which means that the topic has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. You seem to be describing your own original research, and one of our core content policies is that we do not publish original research but instead summarize what has been published elsewhere. I suggest that you write an article for a publication that covers mechanical engineering instead. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Little john 31: Have you searched Google patents? Patents on the subject might provide some ideas about how you could describe your work. Best.Hymmolaya (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_592&oldid=791941284"