Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 913

Archive 910

Archive 911

Archive 912

Archive 913

Archive 914

Archive 915

→

Archive 920

When are only general references appropriate?

I am having a hard time understanding when it is accepted to use general sources without inline citations in high-profiled articles (except for really common knowledge of course). The guideline on when to use inline citations is quite vague and does not really explain what's sufficient enough. I looked through the explanation on what information should be treated as challenging, but still unable to have a clear understanding. I hope that I have properly tagged George Santayana (which has sections without citations). This whole thing is confusing for me and may confuse several newcomers as well. Please help be understand this. Thanks! THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ImmortalWizard. As this encyclopedia has developed and matured over the years, the trend is very much in favor of inline citations, although they are only required by policy in certain cases. As a practical matter, speaking as an editor who has written about a hundred new articles and expanded many hundreds more, I use inline citations extensively and never use general sources. Sometimes, I may add a "further reading" link but sparingly. In 2019, I feel safe in saying that almost all experienced editors use inline citations very extensively. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks for your valuable response. For the time being, I will follow what currently best in practice. However, I would suggest an amendment for strengthing the use of sources in wiki policy. I am planning to publish essay(s) regarding citing and verifying sources once I gather enough knowledge and experience, since I believe this aspect of editing had often been overlooked. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to add that today we are leaning more towards footnotes rather than traditional bibliography. I think if we emphasize to create what's best for the readers, I believe it will enhance Wikipedia's credibility as an online encyclopedia. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The whole point of sources is so that it can be verified and to presume to expect someone who may not be scholastically involved in a subject to know just where it is in say a whole publication that may be hundreds of pages long where to look in order to do what is the purpose of footnote. This I find particularly with articles dealing with certain periods of history. How certain topics were handled in the past is not how they may be in present so a general statement taken from a whole book would be rather difficult to locate if not given some specificity. A bibliography? If something is significant to list then it really should be significant to cite. In a sense, those articles that list only a bibliography is sort of like a film plot. It is far easier to locate what is in a plot since you have a beginning and ending in a certain period of time but reading a publication is not always a two hour experience. It is bad enough that the secondary source cited can also be un-footnoted but dependent on a bibliography. So we have an ascertain supported by a bibliography that the "source" itself is supported by a bibliography.2605:E000:9149:8300:69BF:7771:CA4C:222D (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

how?

how do you make wiki pages....??!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayden34582 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ayden34582. There are quite a few of different types of Wikipedia pages; so how you make one of them depends on which type of page you want to make. If you're interested in writing an WP:ARTICLE, then you can find some tips on doing that at Wikipedia:Your first article. I would, however, suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not first since a Wikipedia article should only be written about certain subjects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

How to add logo ?

how to add logo to wikipeia article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redcargoairasia (talk • contribs) 06:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Redcargoairasia. Please read our policy on use of non-free images. In brief, you need to upload a low resolution version of the logo here on Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons), and use it only in an existing Wikipedia article about the organization. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Redcargoairasia. There are different ways to add logos and other files to articles as explained in Help:Pictures, but whether a logo sould be added to an article often depends on how it has been licensed. Copyrighted logos licensed as non-free content can only be used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. You can find out some more information about logos at Wikipedia:Logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Poems in Kenyan Sign Language

Poems in Kenyan Sign Language are included in the course books in both primary and secondary levels in Kenya. The approved course book being " Let's Learn Kenyan Sign Language " which appears at different levels published by the Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development ( K.I.C.D.).

Poems in Kenyan Sign Language are also featured at the Kenya National Music Festival in two categories  (Original composition and set pieces).

Questions 1. Do we have more information in this area? My search seems not to yield anything substantial. 2. Can one contribute in this area based on experience, research and quoting some published work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karori Kirumba (talk • contribs) 01:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Karori Kirumba. Your experience and research may make you a more effective Wikipedia editor, but you cannot add information based on your research to Wikipedia. We have a policy against adding original research. Instead, you must summarize what published reliable sources say about this topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding new categories

Why are all the categories I create deleted? I am trying to create categories of the various types of social media videos but every time I add one it gets deleted? Am I doing something wrong? Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:ASMR_videos&action=edit&redlink=1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Unboxing_videos&action=edit&redlink=1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Haul_video&action=edit&redlink=1

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mochahi (talk • contribs) 06:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mochahi. Category pages are just like any other type of Wikipedia page in that they are subject to various policies and guidelines and may be deleted when they don't comply with such policies and guidelines. General information about category pages can be found in Wikipedia:Categories; however, you can also ask the administrator(s) who have deleted the categories you've been creating for more specific information, There are a couple of ways to find out who these adminstrators are, but the easiest might be to check the deleted category pages themselves (they should be red links) since it will show who deleted the page and why it was deleted. You can also try asking for help from the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Category since those editors tend to be quite familiar with category pages and may also be able to explain why the ones you create are being deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Each of your 3 links shows that the category has been deleted under criterion C1, which is for categories which have been empty for at least 7 days. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Baldi's basics in education and learning

Hi, i can't seem to figure out why there can't be an article on the english wikipedia about Baldi's basics in education and learning while there is an article about it on the spanish wikipedia. Thanks. Pancho507 (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Pancho507 and welcome to the Teahouse. There are usually one of two possible answers to that type of question. But always bear in mind that each language Wikipedia has its own rules and conventions for what is and is not 'notable':

• Nobody has yet been sufficiently motivated enough to try to create an article on that topic
• A page was previously created on that topic, but it was found not to be notable, according to our policies, and so was deleted (or was created as a Draft, but not allowed to be moved into mainspace for the same reason).

I note that there is this article about it on Simple Wikipedia. If you're sufficiently motivated to consider creating (or possibly re-creating) such an article, you would be advised to read Wikipedia:Notability (video games) to ensure you can find sufficient reliable sources to show that it meets English Wikipedia's notability criteria. What any other language wiki thinks about it is irrelevant, I'm afraid. Does this answer your question? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Pancho507: Nobody said there can't be such article. However, for the article to appear in Wikipedia it must fit some standards. Have you seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldi's Basics In Education and Learning...? --CiaPan (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Rami Malek

Rami Malke featured in the World War II series 'The Pacific', not WW I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.145.3 (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Please ask on the talk page of the article. Britmax (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

south korea

ano ang tawag sa mga pera ng south korea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.71.154 (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This is the English Wikipedia, so questions should be in English. Your question translates as asking what South Korea's currency is; this page is for asking questions about editing or using Wikipedia. For information on South Korea, you can visit the article about South Korea by clicking this link. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Trying to change the title of a page

Hello, I'm a librarian working at Manchester Metropolitan University Library. We have a wikipedia page for our main library. This library has recently changed it's name - it used to be called 'Sir Kenneth Green Library' and is now called 'All Saints Library'. Is there a way to change the title of the page? Thanks, Gopal Dutta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopaldmmu (talk • contribs) 12:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gopaldmmu: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Changing the title of an article requires moving the page to a new title. Before you get into that, however, you need to review and comply with the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy(the latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement). I will post information about this on your user talk page as well. To request that the article be moved, you may visit Requested Moves.

I would also note that the library does not possess a "Wikipedia page"; Wikipedia has an article about your library. While your input is welcome, the library has no more special rights to the article than any other editor, as all articles belong to the community. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the article(All Saints Library), it was an uncontroversial move. See HELP:MOVE for info on moving articles. As 331dot mentioned above, be careful with your wording. It's not your article, or the library's. it's Wikipedia's article about the library. The library has no control over it, but it is encouraged to point out errors and make suggestions for improving the article. - X201 (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Gopaldmmu can I just add a really friendly welcome and a 'thank you' for coming to the Teahouse to ask your question. Wikipedia is extremely keen to encourage cooperation between itself and Galleries, Libraries, Museums and Archives (we refer to them as 'GLAM') and there is a huge and exciting opportunity for university libraries to encourage their students and staff to use Wikipedia and to mobilise information or images that the library holds on to Wikipedia. My own city university library (just down the road from you in Derby) has organised so-called 'editathons' where we teach the basics of using and editing Wikipedia, often focussing on some particular aspect of the institution's collections. It is even running courses for journalism students in which editing Wikipedia is a course component (see this page). I should also say that Wikipedia even have a special Wikipedia Project called Glam-Wiki which I would encourage you and other staff at take a look at. Quite often, it's possible to find a number of enthusiastic local Wikipedia editors to work with you to run help events for students or the public, or simply to offer a venue for a 'Meetup', or perhaps as an opportunity to host a meeting for CILIP members with a session on how Wikipedia works. I'll put a copy of this reply on your own talk page, and if you should ever need any help or advice in that regard, do pop over to my own talk page and ask for assistance or to chat about ideas for public engagement. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@X201:thanks for doing that. I understand what you and 331dot are saying here - I'm very new to wikipedia but will try to review the conflict of interest and paid editing docs and try to be more careful with my wording.[[User:Gopaldmmu|Gopaldmmu] (talk)

@Nick Moyes:Thanks for the warm welcome and for all of the information. This does sound really interesting and is definitely something we might be interested in. I'll review the information you've posted on my talk page and get back to you. Cheers! Gopaldmmu

User Page

How would i go about creating a custom user page that will give good detail about me? I am looking to create a sort of auto biography on the site so other users can learn more about me. UnearthlyDragon (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Knowing what you can and cannot put on your user page is the best place to start. See WP:UPNOT for details. - X201 (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, UnearthlyDragon. I'm sorry to disappoint you but, put simply, you can't create autobiographies here. I suspect you might have the wrong idea about Wikipedia. It is actually an encyclopaedia of 'notable things' and there are strict criteria of what Notabilty means. Fail that, and there is no article. That said, if you want to contribute to the encyclopaedia, you are welcome to create a small userpage to tell other editors about you and your editing interests. But that must not grow into some sort of LinkedIn autobiography. Would you take a look at WP:USERPAGE, which is a shortcut to a page on what userpages are for, and on what is and isn't permitted on userpages. We don't allow them just to be created so someone can show off to their friends. Instead, take a look at Help:Getting started, or try The Wikipedia Adventure where you can collect 15 different badges as you head off into space to tour the basics of Wikipedia editing. Good luck - Wikipedia needs all the nerdy teenagers it can get but, like everyone else, they do need to take time to understand how we operate! Nick Moyes (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If you look at other editors' User pages (mine for example), you will see that many have added ready-made userboxes. There is a long list you can peruse to find ones you like. A caution: some new editors spend huge amounts of time embellishing their User page, and very little time editing articles. There are more than 5,000,000 articles in English Wikipedia, and the great majority could be improved. Once you have learned a bit about editing, you could see if there is an existing article about where you live, or your high school. If Wikipedia is a theater, editors are the backstage minions, not the performers in the bright lights. David notMD (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Writing a biography of a living person - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Peter_Osin

Dear Wikipedia Helper,

RE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Peter_Osin

I submitted a page with a biography of my partner Dr Peter Osin (who had asked me to do so). The information was all taken from his biography on his hospital website (he is a pathologist at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London) and I gave a link to this website as a source.

Somebody called HickoryOughtShirt?4‬ sent me a message, and said the page might not be retained, but - a little unhelpfully - did not explain why. I felt I had conformed to all the criteria of creating a page referring to a living person. It was neutral, accurate, and referenced.

Could you help?

Thank you very much - Warwick Thompson — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarwickThompson (talk • contribs) 14:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Reasons clearly given on your Talk page: using copyright content from another source (tsk!) and not neutral point of view. The content at Royal Marsden can be used as a reference, but you must substantially rephrase it in your own words. I am guessing you also did not state your conflict of interest, required because you personally know Dr. Peter Osin. Lastly, my own quick search on Peter Osin did not find published content that qualifies as making him 'notable' per Wikipedia's criteria. Meaning that other people have written about him. If all people were Wikipedia-notable for doing the job they trained for it would be an encyclopedia of everyone. David notMD (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Nationality

How is nationality determined for the purpose of a Wikipedia article? Exbrum (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Exbrum. I'm no expert on writing biographies, generally I would say that nationality should be mentioned in the lead paragraph of a biography, and there are guidelines as to what is relevant there - see this shortcut: MOS:OPENPARABIO. You should determine nationality information based upon what reliable, published sources have said about them, and definitely not your own opinions of their nationality. If it is unlikely to be a contentious issue then, in lieu of anything else, it might then be acceptable to use information on the subject's own website, but this is not advisable for any topic where nationality is liable to be a disputed subject. Current issues around Shamima Begum might fall into that category. As this is an encyclopaedia based on what reliable sources say, if you can't prove something that is in doubt, simply leave it out. Does this help with your question? @Exbrum: Fixing failed ping. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks, that is helpful in that it gives help on naming birth place and date, but not really on the determination (for Wikipedia purposes, at least) of nationality. The case in point is Thomas Roberts (bishop). In the infobox his nationality is given as French. Before discussing this on the talk page I thought I should brief myself on Wiki conventions on the matter.

Roberts's great grandparents are described in Burke's Landed Gentry of Ireland as "of Dublin"; 3 of his grandparents are described as being from Liverpool the other from Ayrshire; his parents were from Liverpool and married there. Roberts himself was however born in France because his father happened to be working there at the time. Does that make his nationality French? Exbrum (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Exbrum: No, I don't think so. Wikipedia policies will never tell you whether an element of this very recent edit was factually correct, except that no source was cited to support the insertion of French nationality in an article whose lead for the last 12 years has stated, and continues to state, that he was English. On those grounds alone I would have swiftly removed that particular uncited addition. But you are very sensible to want to ensure you understand policies before either discussing on the article's Talk Page or with the editor themselves the basis (i.e. WP:RS) upon which it was added or, as I believe, should be swiftly removed. A quick word on the other editor's talk page would have been my first approach, having just removed it, especially necessary if they reinserted it so as to avoid an 'edit war'. Does that help more? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks. Have done as you suggested.

Wrong case linked in various places

In a few different places, the case Bishop v. U.S., 350 U.S. 961 (1956) is linked (examples: box on "Mental Competence" at the bottom of Dusky v. United States). Really this should be a redlink as we don't have a page on this case. Instead, clicking on it links you to information on an unrelated case, also captioned Bishop v. United States, from 2004. I'm not sure how to fix this. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Change the link to [[Bishop v. United States (1956)|Bishop v. United States]]. That will make a red link to the not-yet-created article, inviting creation, and with a naming scheme that is pretty standard. If it turns out one of the cases is the primary title, after creation of an article at the red link, proper disambiguation naming can be dealt with then. 207.29.45.2 (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

COI Editing and Page Protection

I am working toward attempting to edit a page of a company I work for. I want to avoid COI, so I believe a COI request in the Talk page would be most successful, is this correct? A concern is that even if following all the policies of Wikipedia, and correcting the out of date and false content on the company's Wiki page then it will either be denied, or editors will simply continue to place incorrect information on the page. Therefore, would it be worth it to try and protect the page in order to attempt avoiding these dilemmas of the constant back and forth? The organization's Wiki talk page states that it is of mid-importance. Any suggestions on how not to waste my time here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.105.125 (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you work for the company, WP:COI and WP:PAID require you to declare this. Yes, you are correct that you should make a request on the article talk page. A formal way to do so that will attract the attention of others is described at WP:ER. Remember that a Wikipedia article can contain any and all information, be it good or bad, that appears in independent reliable sources. If you notice errors, please make your edit request detailing what changes you feel are needed and any sources you have to back them up. Primary sources are only acceptable in limited circumstances(such as location, number of employees, etc.); otherwise Wikipedia is only interested in independent, third party sources. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. About a year ago, we attempted this same task through a COI request, which we suggested edits to a financial section and we attached a resource involving financial reports that were available on the company's website (directly to the public) which is considered a third part source, yes? But it was denied because it was deemed "promotional", but I am not sure how this was promotional when it was pulled word for word from a financial report. Any clues as to why this would be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.105.125 (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with ~~~~ or click the Signature button on the screen, above where you write your post(it looks like a scribble), so we know you wrote your posts. Without knowing the article and edit involved, it is difficult to say, but financial reports just report information from the company, making it a primary source- and a company representative posting the company's financial information would indeed be editing promotionally. Wikipedia isn't interested in what the company says about itself in its own financial reports(even if those reports are republished by third parties), only in what independent sources state. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay I will make sure to sign my posts. Last question - is there a possible way to delete a Wikipedia page? What criteria must be met to get this done? thank you. 216.54.105.125 (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

There are several deletion processes, but all need to have reasoning behind them. You most likely will use WP:AFD. For AFD, you must explain why you think it should be deleted, and people will discuss and eventually reach a conclusion. Just curious, what page do you want to delete? Have a nice day! WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Operation Smile - I am new to Wikipedia and I am not sure how "offensive" this could be taken, but our Wikipedia page is 90% inaccurate with outdated information as well as just incorrect information. It is hard to consider the time and effort that would go into learning how to get (and keep) the correct information on our Wikipedia page when the easier thing may be just to delete the page. I don't mean for this keep the public from learning about OS, but that is what our website is for, in my opinion. 216.54.105.125 (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you believe is wrong with the page? I don't think deletion is the right choice for this page. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The Operation Smile article is more than ten years old, so VERY unlikely it would be considered for deletion. There is a factual inaccuracy tag at the top, put in place December 2017, so readers are alerted that there may be errors in the article, albeit not directed to better information. The tag should induce concerned editors to work to improve the article. How you can help: At the Talk page of the article, declare your paid relationship and propose text that corrects errors. Provide valid references, in correct reference format. This means not what the organization writes about itself, rather what others have published about it. Keep in mind there is no "our Wikipedia page'" only "a Wikipedia page." David notMD (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

So David, am I not allowed to use operationsmile.org as a reference when correcting information? 216.54.105.125 (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources can only be used in certain circumstances, usually to correct purely factual information, such as number of employees, location, etc. Please read WP:PRIMARY for more information. In case you did not see your user talk page, you must comply with the paid editing policy, even as an unpaid intern. Interns are treated no differently than paid employees under the paid editing policy(as you are gaining the experience of working with the organization). 331dot (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I can understand why you don't think that is the right choice for this page. However, there is a laundry list of incorrect information and outdated information as I previously mentioned. So those are the things wrong with the page. And as someone who works for the company (unpaid intern) we are trying to coming up with ways to combat the constant struggle of Wikipedia. Hence, our desire to just delete the page in general. We of course want what is best for the organization, not necessarily what is best for Wikipedia. As I am sure you can understand.216.54.105.125 (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

And I'm sure you could understand that the reverse is true as well; Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject thinks about the presence of an article about it on Wikipedia. If everyone or everything that did not want an article was permitted to have it deleted, there would be very little content here. If there are inaccuracies or errors, we would prefer that they be corrected. The article won't be deleted just because the organization might want it to be, but only for reasons based in Wikipedia policies and a consensus among editors. It is true that OS's website is the place for it to speak about itself and tell the world about itself; Wikipedia is the place to summarize what third parties state about article subjects. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I can understand you not wanting to spend time to fix it, but then don't waste time trying to delete it either, as was mentioned by David, it is very unlikely to be deleted. WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I would add that Operation Smile is, of course, free to post on its own website or in its own public messages something to the effect of "don't go to the Wikipedia article about us to learn more, come here". 331dot (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.216.54.105.125 (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel confident in saying that the chance of deleting the article about Operation Smile is essentially zero, so I suggest that you focus your efforts on trying to improve the article by discussing your concerns in detail at Talk:Operation Smile. The last edit request from was in April, 2017, nearly two years ago. One editor briefly declined the request and discussion came to an end. You need to point out the specific errors and inaccuracies, and provide reliable sources (preferably sources independent of the organization) that back the proposed changes. Please be aware that this article will never become a marketing brochure for "Operation Smile 2019" but will be a neutral article about the entire long history of the group, the good and the bad. It seems that this charity was criticized extensively for its surgical practices in major newspapers 20 years and also for some of its financial practices in following years. That information will not be removed but if reliable sources have subsequently reported that these problems have been solved, then the article can be edited accordingly. The way for you to help improve the article is to make specific proposals for changes, one by one, on the talk page, and to provide links to reliable sources for each one. I will add the article to my watch list. Please feel free to contact me when you have proposed specific changes on the talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It certainly appears to me that the article in question is already way way top heavy with information from the organization. Frankly, about 75% of the article should be cut, and I'm pretty sure that what needs to be cut is not what the organization would want cut. Further research is needed of course, but at this time with the current sources, all that should be there is the negative information. John from Idegon (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Creation of a new page

Sir, how can I create a new page on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanshita poddar (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vanshita poddar: You can learn about that at WP:YFA. This is not an easy thing for new users, so new users are usually advised to start by working to improve existing articles. RudolfRed (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

can i use youtube as a source of reference ?

Can i use youtube video as a source of reference.Rocky 734 (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Rocky 734, Only in some rare cases. What video and what article? WelpThatWorked (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@WelpThatWorked: its about a article of a living being, whose interview is being taken in a video in internet so, the things which he said can be used in writing or not i'm in doubt, rarely any source is available for him in internet.--Rocky 734 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rocky 734: Depends on the credibility of the channel. Would you mind sharing the link? Otherwise considering reading this page about citing YouTube. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Cannot edit existing wikipedia page

Hello, I am trying to edit some paragraphs in the Bipolar disorder page under genetics. Every time I have made an edit it is rejected. Can someone please help with this? I sent my last attempt via an editor as I am now unable to edit the page myself but I have not heard anything back. Thank you Flamingo2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingo2019 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Flamingo2019: The article you are trying to edit is semi-protected, as you know, since you have already placed a request on the article's talk page. Please discuss this at Talk:Bipolar_disorder. You need to provide citations to reliable sources to support your edit request. RudolfRed (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read the reply you received when you last asked about this: WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 910#Cannot edit existing wikipedia page. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The section on genetics was patchy and not coherent,especially for a layperson. I have tried to leave as much content as I could from the original entry. I have tried to put myself in the shoes of a relative of someone with bipolar disorder. I have re-phrased statistics in a way that (I hope) they are easy to understand and not anxiety producing. Thank you Flamingo2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingo2019 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Perplexed, as not seeing any history of your attempts to edit the article. Presuming what was meant that your edits were not allowed because article is semi-protected. As noted above, you also proposed changes at Talk page of the article which were not accepted by other editors because you did not provide references in support of your proposed changes, which included deleting referenced content. David notMD (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to add references to support the edits-being new to wikipedia I did not fully understand how to add them. Going forward, until I am able to make edits myself -when sending proposed changes to an editor I will include the references ( Flamingo2019 (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC) )

Fix bad translation?

I'm brand new to this end of Wikipedia (have long used it to learn).

I came across an article that was clearly a bad (but not machine-level bad) translation from (presumably) French: bio of Habib Bourguiba, the longtime premier of Tunisia. The topic is a bit controversial (people's views of him are divided), but I am neither well informed nor partisan about it. I am, however, a fluent reader of French (although not a native speaker) and have plenty of experience in professional writing. I'm confident that even without access to the original, I could improve the article's readability.

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

Here is the French one, which does not seem to be the source of the translation: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habib_Bourguiba

Would this be a good way to get involved? Or would it be better to start elsewhere?

Thank you! Sarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAArgile (talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

CAArgile, If you think you are good at translating, Go ahead! Be Bold! WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@CAArgile: Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. If you are going to be bold and work on this article, the one piece of advice I might give you is to only make small changes at a time. Explain each one with a clear edit summary and wait some time between sets of edits. The page has 50 people watching it, and it would be a shame for someone to revert all your work if they happen to disagree with one small element of it. You might even wish to introduce yourself on the article's talk page and explain that you're attempting a neutral translation of the French page and associated sources, inviting watchers to raise any concerns that they may have with you. Personally, I might have preferred to learn the basics of editing on a page unlikely to attract partisan editors, but then again, simply improving the quality of written English ought to be a relatively simple affair, providing you don't accidentally alter the meaning from any of the cited sources. Good luck. (If you fancy another project, I'm keen to find new French sources and convert some of this into a draft page here!) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

How to protect a page if i dont have editions?

Hello. I want to protect the page "Basmala" that is not protected. Please reply, do you had an technique to protect the page Basmala? Ok. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by FBI Harmony Bot (talk • contribs)

Hello, FBI Harmony Bot go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and follow the instructions there. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@FBI Harmony Bot: That page really doesn't need protection right now - there simply hasn't been enough bad editing done to it to justify protection. And the last couple of bad edits were undone by two administrators, so the article clearly has eyes on it. However, on a very different note, I am going to have to advise you that your own username is not acceptable on Wikipedia as it contains the name 'Bot' which suggests that it is an automated bot account, when it clearly isn't. Don't worry - you've done absolutely nothing wrong, but I would request please that you abandon using this account completely, and create one under another name instead. Yours may well get 'softblocked' because of its name. You can read more about why that's a problem and why you've accidentally breeached one of our guidelines by using this shortcut: WP:MISLEADNAME. Just start again with a new account name, and enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. No harm done. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Bias against open access publishers on WP?

Dear all,

MDPI is the leading open access publisher with just over 64'000 articles published in 2018. For several years now the same group of editors are following the article about the company on WP. I see that several of the editors are also editing the WP pages of other open access publishers, such as Frontiers and Hindawi. Any negative content posted anywhere on the Internet is immediately added, while positive content is mostly ignored or put down. On the MDPI page, an editor recently removed a lot of content that had a reference to the company's website, claiming that "primary sources" should be removed. What remains is an article that is almost entirely about "Controversies". If we try to add any informational content to the page it is immediately reversed as the editors claim that we as employees of the company have a conflict of interest. We have tried to discuss and argue our points on the Talk page, but there is clearly a very strong bias there and no changes proposed by us are even considered. Any suggestions on how we could handle this issue in a better way?

It is quite peculiar to see this type of opposition against open access publishers on WP, as free availability of scientific content is certainly something that is in the interest of the project?

Best regards, ErskineCer (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Wikipedia takes information from independent secondary sources. This means that the thing which has the largest section on the page will usually be the thing reported the most. This means that if a company has a lot of controversies reported in the news, then the controversies section will be large compared to the other sections of the article. ^{[Username Needed]} 09:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A company's own website can be listed as an External Link, but only the most basic of information can be sourced to the company's website as a reference. And yes, employees are restricted by WP:PAID to proposing content at the article's Talk page, so that non-involved editors can decide to include in the article. It's not MDPI, it's policy. David notMD (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Note that ErskineCer is an employee of MDPI and has a COI with respect to it. And the opposition isn't to open access publishing, the opposition is to shit open access publishing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

How to block someone from editing on my talk page

Hi, I'm not sure if you can help me at all, but I've got a user ( Kntx12 ) giving me abuse on my talk page, all because I did something wrong on Wikipedia.

Is there a way to block this person from contacting me?

They've basically told me "enjoy my last days on wiki"...

And that I'm "the typical kid who couldn't take criticism. Grow up and grow a pair."

If you go to my edit history on my talk page, you will see what they said.

I can't be bothered to argue over something I made a mistake over.

Thanks, L1amw90 (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

L1amw90—you can just ignore anyone posting anything on your Talk page. We have an essay Don't take the bait. At your convenience you archive your Talk page. The best thing is not to get stressed out. Only engage in a conversation if it is constructive. That is my advice. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) L1amw90 Due to the technical nature of this site it is impossible to block or prevent individual users to edit your talk page without blocking them from editing the entire site. Talk pages can be semi-protected if there has been a lengthy pattern of disruption, but only in the very worst of cases.. That being said, I am sorry you were subjected to such audacious comments. Zingarese talk · contribs 17:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@L1amw90: In addition to the above advice, you should stop posting on the other user's talk page also. RudolfRed (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You are within your rights to blank your Talk page (which you have repeatedly done). And the offending editor has been advise not to make provocative Talk page posts. Ideally, this should cool down without anyone needing to be temporarily or permanently blocked. David notMD (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Block from contacting you no, there's even some situations where WP-rules says they must. You can, however tell them something like "I don't want you to ping me or write on my talkpage from now on, please respect that" (and return the favor). That often works, if not always. If they keep posting on your talkpage despite that, you can ask an admin to look at the situation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Red link even though I'm linking to a wiki page

Hello, I'm wondering why my link is red when I'm linking to another wiki page. I'm trying to link to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Academy_of_Film_and_Television_Arts, but when I attach this URL to the text on the page it goes to a "Create This page" instead of loading the page that the URL is pointing to.

Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebSolEditor (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi WebSolEditor, don't link the entire url, just put the page title between double square brackets, like this [[British Academy of Film and Television Arts]], which will give you the correct link, British Academy of Film and Television Arts. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for you fast response! That didn't work though. Here is my code that I tried below. It linked to the Create page again. ! scope="row" | 2018 | Britannia BAFTA Humanitarian award | BAFTA Los Angeles Humanitarian awards | United States

I figured this out. THANK YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebSolEditor (talk • contribs) 21:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Would this edit qualify for revision deletion per RD2? Mstrojny (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mstrojny In a word, No. More info/advice to follow shortly. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, Mstrojny, so WP:REVDEL is where we ask an administrator to remove from view (redact) the contents of past edits. Even if they have been removed from the article they will still remain visible in the edit history of the page in question, and visible to all who care to look for it. Insults, crudities, links to porn sites etc are all pretty trivial stuff, and usually the work of spotty immature teens - we just revert these editors' contributions and hope they'll grow up into normal people in due course, perhaps capable of running for President one day. But, what we do need to permanently remove from Wikipedia's edit histories are serious unsubstantiated allegations which could be construed as libellous, or personal details which have been either accidentally or intentionally released, and especially if they relate to minors, and any really serious threats of violence, serious copyright violations and so on. The edit you linked to was simply the puerile kid stuff we see every day. Revert it; Warn the user; See if they continue; Rewarn as necessary; Report to AIV for blocking once they've gone beyond level 4 warnings. I was quite amused to receive this insult a few years ago - I could have asked for it to be revdel-ed, but it didn't really seem important enough to worry about. It just shows I was doing my job right. So, just save revdel for the serious stuff, and laugh off the rest.

But had it been serious stuff that needed erasing permanently, posting that link here would have been totally the wrong way to deal with the situation! You would have been highlighting that content on a very well-read forum. So maybe over a thousand people would have had those allegations drawn to their attention, especially with a topic header acting like a nice red flag. Really bad move! So, the thing you need to do is to act silently. Revert the edit with an anodyne edit summary (i.e. nothing that shouts "There's some juicy stuff here I'm going to remove!" Then copy the url of the offending 'diff' or 'diffs' as you did here, but find an administrator who appears to be active, go to their userpage and use the 'Email this user' link in the left hand panel to email them directly with your concerns. On the odd occasion I've needed to do it, I add 'Revdel request' in the subject to highlight the significance of the email. There are more details and lists of revdel-ing admins and other ways to do this at WP:REVDELREQUEST. Well worth a good read through for when you need it next. And because all admins can view 'revdel-ed' content, we have a further protective stage called 'Oversight' whereby selected admins (Oversighters) are able to permanently remove content from view from everyone, including other admins. Do have a read of Wikipedia:Revision deletion for more details, and thanks for being sufficiently concerned to find out more. Keep up the good work. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Unpaid volunteer

Hi group:

I'm not sure what the escalation path might be for this - I am an officer in a volunteer organization. Stress "volunteer", as in "unpaid".

The person policing edits for that organizations page claims that I'm obviously paid. I will not make a claim to be paid when I'm not.

Where should I take the issue for resolution? I'd like to be able to properly edit the article on the organization with newly published and citable information. I've even replied with a citation from the organizations published FAQ that members are not paid.

Best,

Ron Rmesic (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rmesic: Even if you are not literally being paid, conflict of interest guidelines still apply. Please read WP:COI. It's best not to edit articles about organizations you are attached to. RudolfRed (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I would also recommend you have a read about reliable sources. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I don't have a problem disclosing the relationship, I'm just not comfortable with claiming something that isn't true. I was asked to correct some items in the old page that simply were not factual, I think progress has been made in that regard.

Here's the source of current status of that organization - perhaps another editor would be willing to make an entry with the correct information:

Rmesic (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rmesic. Indeed, nobody expects you to declare a situation that isn't true: if you are an unpaid volunteer, declaring your COI is not mandatory, but still strongly recommended. In regard to your request: Wikipedia being edited entirely by volunteers, it's unlikely that anybody will pick up your general "please correct this article according to this source", unless they happen to be particularly interested in the subject. It is more likely to be effective if you make a list of "please add xxx after yyy; please replace xxx with yyy; please remove zzz, especially if you cite a reliably published source for any information you are asking to add. Note also that Wikipedia is not very interested in what an organisation says about itself: if the information you want to add is cited only to sources connected with the organisation, it is less likely to be added, especially if it is in any way promotional (which concept is not limited to commercial organisations in the Wikipedia world). --00:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

References

New article

I made Draft: Feabie, and I would like to get it reviewed, so it will be published. I hope the reviewer reads the talk page, which I'm not sure about some random reviewer will do before blindly rejecting it. Blohbleh (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Blohbleh. I consider it to be unlikely that any AFC reviewer will read the talk page of a draft, since drafts very rarely have active talk pages. You can put a note at the top of the draft directing reviewers to the talk page if you want. However, you wrote there that "there is not much literature about it", which is an argument that the website is not notable. We require significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and three sentences in a news story does not come close. As for the Daily Mail, that tabloid is not a reliable source and should be removed. Most of your references are not about Feabie, and should be removed as distractions that may irritate or confuse a reviewer. As for your concern that reviewers act "blindly", that is an unwarranted assumption of bad faith. If you write a draft that clearly establishes notability by Wikipedia's standards, it is highly likely that the draft will be accepted. On the other hand, if you choose to write a draft about a topic that does not have much literature about it, you should not be surprised if the draft is declined. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Creation of Page on Wikepedia

I would like to created page. Article is already there here, but need assistance to edit: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin Prabhu (talk • contribs) 02:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Austin Prabhu: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to improve it. You can learn how to edit articles by looking at the Tutorial and also by playing the learning game Wikipedia Adventure. Do come back and let us know if you have any specific questions about editing. RudolfRed (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review if closer has retired

Hello. I want to relist a bio article for Kenny Biddle.This was deleted about a year ago in a month long AfD. It has been revamped to attempt to answer the major issues, including notability. (Including the subject being discussed at some length in a NYT article published today.) I read the relisting process, and it seems all paths need to involve the original closer -- who apparently has retired [1] So what do I do? RobP (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rp2006: From what I can tell, you should go ahead and post it at WP:DRV. See item #2 in the purpose list of when not to use DRV. If you have a good reason for not discussing it with the closing admin (which you do if they are not available), then say that in your review request. RudolfRed (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thanks for the quick reply, and sorry, but I find that article extremely un-user friendly. I have no idea what to do. You pointed me to #2 in the section (I think) called Deletion review should not be used. So if you are saying I don't need a deletion review, what do I do? RobP (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rp2006 I believe the part of item 2 that RudolfRed is referencing is "... unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination." Normally you'd be expected to discuss things with the closing admin before starting a DRV, but in this case that's probably not feasible; so, just start a DRV and explain that closing admin has retired. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was trying to point out. Thanks. RudolfRed (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Tried to follow the directions. Does this look right? And do I need to do anything else? RobP (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You have made an error in your assessment, Rp2006. Retired administrator Coffee did not originally delete this article. Instead, they deleted the improperly restored article after a deletion review. The adminstrator who actually deleted the article after a thorough deletion debate was Spartaz, who is still active although it has been about a week since they have edited. Please take a look at who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Biddle. Coffee did not participate in or close that debate. I express no opinion about whether the New York Times article is sufficient. I read the article this morning but was paying more attention to the clearly notable activist and Wikipedia editor Susan Gerbic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Template bots

Hi,

I've been wanting to add a few templates to the footer of all the pages of a few categories. Is there a firefox browser extension for that, or will I need to create my own bot? I'm not sure how to make my own bot.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockingGeo (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You're probably looking for Twinkle. ^{[Username Needed]} 20:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello RockingGeo and welcome to the Teahouse.

For some one-off automated tasks such as the one you have described, AutoWikiBrowser is probably the most appropriate choice. Access to it requires an additional permission and you need to spend some time setting it up. Short of doing it yourself, you can request that another AWB user do the task at by adding a section at WP:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@RockingGeo: Adding "some templates" at the bottom of "all the pages of a few categories" sounds like a decisive plan to get your account blocked and those pages protected. Unless you have some kind of consensus in a discussion behind it. –84.46.53.3 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

So far, I see geology-related nav-bar templates added at the bottom of geology-related articles that had none. The question I might ask is whether it's appropriate to add both {{Geology}} and {{Structural geology}} nav-bars, but it's not a question over which I'd expect to see an editor get threatened with a block. Making a proposal for adding these templates and creating more templates at WikiProject Geology would be an appropriate thing to do. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

For ordinary navboxes (geology might be different) a navbox with a wikilink [[Foobar]] is supposed to be used on the page [[Foobar]]. This creates lots of incoming links on [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Foobar]], sometimes used to pretend some kind of credibility for articles in need of urgent spam + notability checks. Admittedly all battles to drop navboxes and stick to categories were lost more than a decade ago. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Getting draft published

Greetings Teahouse. I am a fairly new User KaiserJohn and have created a draft article Draft:Siegmund and Marilyn Goldman House and would like to know the next steps to get it published. Thank you. KaiserJohn (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello KaiserJohn. Welcome to the Teahouse. I have changed the link to your draft as you gave a url to what we call a 'diff' - showing an old version. I have tidied up the format of the first sentence (three single apostrophes, not double quote marks create emboldening), and have added one of your photos and a submit button. Just click that when you're ready to submit it for review. Personally, I'd advise you to put a bit more work into it first. It is incredibly short, with minimal information. Are there no other sources to demonstrate its significance, or that allow you to state when it was added to the official list? Can you not find anything more worthwhile to say than what's already in there?The essential reference to the official list fails for me, so this must be fixed if you want it to be accepted as a notable structure. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello there

Hi! I wish to become an autoconfirmed user, soon I should bake cookies for dessert! and also good luck, and have fun! --GregR56072 (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, GregR56072. Autoconfirmed status is one of Wikipedia's reasonable defense mechanisms against vandalism and other forms of disruptive editing. It requires a minimum of ten edits and a minimum of four days of editing. You have just met the ten edits threshold but your account is only a few hours old. Please explain why you are in a hurry to get the autoconfirmed status, and please be aware that attempts to game the system are frowned upon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked as suspected sockpuppet. David notMD (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)