Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 403

Archive 400

Archive 401

Archive 402

Archive 403

Archive 404

Archive 405

→

Archive 410

Image Usage

Hi, I'm in the process of reversing a merge of some pages, and creating an individual article for each of the High schools in the Nebo School District. What regulations are there about using their respective logos in the infoboxes etc? Thanks, MrCrazyDude (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, MrCrazyDude, and welcome back to the Teahouse. Generally the rule for Fair Use of copyrighted logos is that a low-resolution copy (200 pixels or thereabouts) is acceptable when used on the page of the organization whose logo it is. Note that logos generally cannot be uploaded to Commons, but must be hosted on Wikipedia proper, and must have a Fair Use rationale included. In the infobox, when the article has an infobox, is an excellent place for such a logo to be displayed. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, GrammarFascist, do you mean 200 pixels total, or approximate max. dimensions of 200 x 200 pixels? Thanks again, MrCrazyDude (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no specific size rule about logos, unlike album covers and other artwork. The fair-use rationale states "The logo is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution." so a simple logo could be lower resolution but a complex one higher resolution, so it is not a splodge. Please see Wikipedia:Logos for the specific guidance. - Arjayay (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist probably means about 200px in terms of one, the widest, dimension - this is usually the width. There is no specific rule, but the relevant guideline can be found at: WP:IMAGERES. My personal interpretation is that since the purpose of the image is to serve as identification in the infobox, the image should not be larger than the size it is rendered by the infobox. For instance, Template:Infobox school renders the image put in the |logo= parameter at the width of 250px, so I would upload the image resized to 250px width. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, MrCrazyDude, I meant approximately 200 pixels in its longest dimension, and that figure was just a suggestion, not a rule. I should have stated that more clearly. I believe Finnusertop is correct that the display width for infobox images is 250px wide, so since that would probably be the only place the image would be displayed on Wikipedia, uploading a copy of each logo that is 250px wide seems to be the best idea. If you have already uploaded a larger or smaller version of any of the high schools' logos, you can use the "Upload a new version of this file" link to replace it with a 250px version. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The guideline gives examples of 320x240 px and 250x400 px, making the longest dimension closer to 400 pxels, so 250px is definitely still on the safe side, but per the reasoning above, ideal for infoboxes. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with logo size in the infobox is that if it gets over approx 225px, it stretches the size of the infobox. Common practice on school articles is to limit the size to 180-200px. You can use the size paramater in the file. Example: |logo = [[File:LogoFoo.png|180px]] John from Idegon (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I was unable to replicate this, John from Idegon. The infobox is of the same width with an image set to less than 250px (eg. 180) than it is with a larger image when no size is specified in |logo_size=. Setting |logo_size= to wider than 250px, however stretches the box. Other than that, the template always renders the width of the infobox as if the image was 250px. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all, I'll proceed with the images then. Thanks, MrCrazyDude (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

MrCrazyDude, please note that you can't use the images in your sandbox (see NFCC#9. You should upload them only when your article is ready and in article space. In the meanwhile, you can use a placeholder image (eg. File:Example.svg) in your sandbox. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Finnusertop! I didn't know that. Thanks again, MrCrazyDude (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Finnusertop, I'm not MrCrazyDude but I do have to ask: can the final images be used instead of example images in Draft space versus User space? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} { Talk } 22:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No, see the link already provided above to NFCC#9. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

where

where can i find some pages that need inproving have not seen any pages that need to be edited thanks Kaiwen0115 (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kaiwen0115, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Community portal features a frequently updated list of articles with specific problems you can help improve. I like to think of it as the starting point for everything related to the Wikipedia community, as it has helpful links to almost every community department. If you need help getting started, I recommend The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a fun, interactive introduction to contributing. For a more formal, less-interactive introduction, see Wikipedia:Tutorial. If you have any questions, feel free to post here at the Teahouse again. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kaiwen0115, copy this snippet of code and drop this code snippet on to your User talk:Kaiwen0115 page (go to your Talk page and click on 'Edit'):

{{User:SuggestBot/config
|frequency = weekly
}}

and then Save it. In a few days, SuggestBot will drop a matrix of suggestions on your Talk page, and every week another matrix. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} { Talk } 03:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I delete irrelevant revision history on my talk page?

I was playing around with my talk page and seeing how things worked, but now I have a list of irrelevant revision history that I kind of just want to get rid of (I get obsessive about these kind of things)... Is there any way I can delete this revision history (consisting of edits from bots telling me things about the pages I've made and me just playing around)? Lawrencedepe (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but page histories usually remain in place unless there is a very good reason to delete them. Usually this is because of copyright violations, libellous material, trolling, or personal information being revealed. The only "housekeeping" is fixing mistakes from deleting page revisions. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe there are two levels of history refactoring or redaction:

1. - Hide it from view by an admin/sysop.
2. - Delete it from the servers by a super user.

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} { Talk } 03:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

And the first one still has the dashed out revision in the history so that people know that something was blocked out. The second option usually only comes up if US or international law were broken. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify what Checkingfax was getting at, standard revision deletion allows an administrator to hide a specific revision of a page from view by all non-administrators. A higher level of this is called "oversight", which hides a revision from view by all editors, including administrators, except for a group of highly trusted users called functionaries; specifically, the functionaries that have access to oversight. These special functions are performed in accordance with the revision deletion policy and the oversight policy, respectively. I suppose that theoretically, a Wikimedia Foundation system administrator could go directly into the servers and delete a revision or log entry directly and permanently, but this is practically never done and there is no procedure for this on the English Wikipedia. Additionally, as Ian.thomson mentioned, user talk pages are almost never deleted, and revision deletion is rarely employed for user talk pages, except to protect a user's privacy, or to redact harassment and particularly egregious conduct violations (see the policy page linked earlier for the specific criteria). Lawrencedepe, I took a quick glance at your user talk page history, and unfortunately, I don't see any material that would qualify for either revision deletion or oversight. Best, Mz7 (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate level of complexity/detail in overview or lede

I am wondering if there is a guideline that establishes the appropriate level of the above.

The issue relates to the question: if a reasonably smart and/or educated person reads any (except the most specialized) article(s) should he/she be able to get a significant grasp of it from the overview or lede sections? I expect that for various concepts within various specialties the answer is no. But I do run into articles about subjects that are not that complex, yet it seems one would have to already be quite familiar with the topic to make sense of the lede. Arbalest Mike (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome Arbalest Mike to the WP Teahouse. Here are two helpful articles:

1. - [[MOS:LEAD]] (an official WP guideline -- but not a policy)
2. - [[WP:CREATELEAD]] (an unofficial but linked essay created by Wikipedia editors to interpret MOS:LEAD in easier terminology)

Here is a banner we can add if an article is too technical, but we should also explain our concerns on the article Talk page as well (otherwise it's what is called 'drive-by tagging'):

I hope this helps. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} { Talk } 20:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The articles are good but don't address the issue of the appropriate level of audience to assume, for at least the lead. I know many subjects are inherently technical and that the response to the suggested tag might well be a reminder that it is just one of those subjects. I can try inserting the tag and make a corresponding talk-page entry and see what happens. But, I sort of expected nothing to change overall if there is no general policy about article leads being comprehensible to the layman. Arbalest Mike (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Arbalest Mike. There is an essay available at WP:Writing better articles that has some useful advice that is relevant to your questions:

"Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully. Avoid using jargon whenever possible. Consider the reader. An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and technical details and terms are appropriate, linking to articles explaining the technical terms. On the other hand, an article entitled "Baroque music" is likely to be read by laypersons who want a brief and plainly written overview, with links to available detailed information. When jargon is used in an article, a brief explanation should be given within the article. Aim for a balance between comprehensibility and detail so that readers can gain information from the article."

In my opinion, the lead section of an article should be written so that it can be read and understood by most intelligent high school students. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Alpha Kappa Omicron

User:Naiele3 has asked me on my talk page about my decline of the submission of Draft:Alpha Kappa Omicron, which I declined as showing insufficient independent evidence of notability. I am willing to discuss it here with the author and with other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good decline.The draft as it stands clearly has no significant coverage by reliably published third party sources. I have done no searching to see if such coverage exists somewhere, but if it does, it is not in evidence on that draft. In fact it is far closer to the WP:G11 side of the scale than a valid article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I did do some searching for sources a few days ago when I first became aware of the draft. While my search was not exhaustive, and it's possible that offline sources that could establish AKO's notability exist, I was satisfied that significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources does not appear to exist online. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 13:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with Fraternities and Sororities is that most of them want to keep their information "secret", and get upset if people publish any information about them, especially their code words, signs, etc. - but they get equally upset that, as there are no published independent, reliable sources they do not meet our general notability guideline - Arjayay (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There's certainly not a lot out there. Enough to confirm it, and the chapters, exist - and that they have done some fund-raising. This page didn't load for me, perhaps others will have better luck. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

I think that we are all saying more or less the same. Confirming that an organization exists does not confirm that it meets the general criteria for notability. An advertisement by an urban boutique for its products in a neighborhood newspaper confirms that it exists. It doesn't confirm that it is notable, given that hundreds of thousands of boutiques exist in cities in the United States. This is a non-profit social version of the boutique problem, in my opinion. (The banner on my talk page tells editors that, if I have declined a submission, they are invited to come here and discuss with other experienced editors. Other AFC reviewers might want to offer a similar message. After all, AFC reviewers shouldn't want to be acting personally, but as representatives of the experienced editors of the community, and if I make a mistake in declining, I welcome another editor accepting it instead.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite so. By the way, the information that such organizations usually want to keep "secret" wouldn't contribute much to notability even if it were published, in my view. (see Iron Ring for a group that keeps details of its ceremonies private, but is nonetheless notable.) What would is coverage of things such groups have done, or independent writing about the group. I actually suspect that such writing does exist offline, dating from decades ago when such groups were more central to the College experience, but that is just a guess. DES ^(talk) 16:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"paper only coverage" is unlikely to apply in this instance, as it was only founded in '97 (1997, not 1897) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So I read some helpful and some not so helpful comments on this. What would be most helpful is a clear definition of what is considered notable. I read these notability pages and link, but they pretty much go way too in-depth and on tangents. I just need a clear cut list on what I should use and a simple justification as to how it makes the article notable. Just so that I don't get another run around. Like I said before, I was told on a talk page that school newspapers were notable enough, but that does not seem to be the case. Naiele3 (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Naiele3. Unfortunately, there are often not "clear definitions" of this sort of thing, as Wikipedia works by consensus. The requirement on sources is that they be reliable and independent. Reliability of a source is not absolute: a source can be regarded as reliable for some purposes, and not for others. The general requirement for reliability is that there is editorial control over the source, with a reputation for fact-checking. On this basis it would be unusual for a school newspaper to be regarded as reliable for any Wikipedia purposes. --ColinFine (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

DOI value citation errors

Can anyone figure out how to fix the DOI value errors seen for two of the references for the draft article in my sandbox here? I suppose these are not proper "10. registry identifiers", but I've had no luck figuring out how to fix them. The abstracts, where I took the DOI names from, are here and here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) I fixed the first. Still no luck with the second.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, I pounded it from several different angles but it vexed me. The link-through says the doi lacks a proper prefix. I tried several doi combos and they all failed. I added a url= to that citation so at least readers can click-through to the doi abstract. I did some other minor citation fixes on the page. I also rem'd out the Categories with a colon instead of with the nowiki so I could see if your chosen categories would go "live". Category:Birds of Burma is not a valid category so it appears as a redlink. I know you're more expert than me, but I find it helpful to use HotCat (a Gadget) to add categories on a Draft page, then go in and rem them out with a colon. Sorry I couldn't fix the doi issue, but I did tag it with doi access issue date. I did made several helpful minor changes so don't roll back my edits. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} { Talk } 22:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Thanks for trying. That gives me some measure of confidence it's a problem with the doi they provide there and not with what I and you tried. Though the doi would be preferable, I'll just use the pdf url (rather than the abstract url) before going live with the draft. Theoretically, I would never rollback your edits – I would just revert them;-) but there would be no reason to do so here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Actress with same name.

There are two Ishita Sharma in Bollywood. Ishita Sharma already has her page. The other who acted in Pyaar Ka Punchnama and Pyaar Ka Punchnama 2 doesn't have her page. This is creating confusion among users. It's weird that IMDB has combined the filmography of both the actresses and created a single page. Bollywood Hungama has separate page for both of them. Ishita Sharma 1 and Ishita Sharma. This is the picture of Ishita Sharmafrom Pyaar Ka Punchnama who doesn't have her page. And this is the picture of Ishita Sharma who has her page. The Avengers (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not an unusual problem, until we have an article on the "other" Ishita Sharma I suggest you add a "confusion" section to the existing page stating there are two actresses with the same name, who are often confused, using IMDB as an example, and listing the films the "other" one has done. However, this will need references from reliable sources, including at least one that states they are not the same.
If you want to write an article about the "other" Ishita Sharma, the titles will need to be disambiguated. You need to pick the clearest difference between them, this might be the year of their birth, their other abilities, or their preferred medium. If the existing article is about one who is significantly better known, it should stay where it is and the new article given the alternative title e.g. Ishita Sharma (singer) Both articles should then have a hatnote linking to the other article. If they are both moderately well known, to avoid arguments about who is more famous, rename the existing page e.g. Ishita Sharma (dancer) or Ishita Sharma (born 1988) and make Ishita Sharma into a disambiguation page. For more information please see WP:Disambiguation - Arjayay (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi The Avengers, welcome to the Teahouse. If the one we don't have an article about was born in YYYY and not the same year as the other then the article name could be "Ishita Sharma (actress, born YYYY)" per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Disambiguating. Both with and without an article about her, mentions of her can use the link [[Ishita Sharma (actress, born YYYY)|Ishita Sharma]] which renders as Ishita Sharma. If the name is left unlinked then editors may later make a wrong link to the Ishita Sharma with an article. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Arjayay Both are Bollywood actresses. The one with article does arthouse movies and small budget movies. The one who don't have a page has done two comedy movies which are more popular. The senior actress has an article but she has less popularity among public. I don't have any knowledge about their date of birth. No one is a dancer or singer, both are Bollywood actresses. I will have to E-Mail IMDB about this. As anyone can submit IMDB update (I have done it myself); the fans of Ishita Sharma without Wikipedia article added filmography on the existing IMDB page of the senior Ishita Sharma who is less popular. The IMDb filmography of the new Ishita Sharma who has more fan following needs to be separated. The Avengers (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers - On what reliable source are you basing your claim "The senior actress has an article but she has less popularity among public." ?? Without a reliable source, this is just your point of view, which simply does not count. This is why I said "to avoid arguments about who is more famous", as, unfortunately, Indian cinema articles are prone to arguments and infighting - trying to promote one actor/actress above another.

If you cannot establish basic facts about the "other" Ishita Sharma; like her Date of Birth, where she is from, and what other skills she has, all based on reliable sources, she may not be notable enough for her own article. You have said neither is a dancer, but the existing article states Ishita Sharma is a Kathak dancer - what attributes does the other Ishita Sharma have? I do not think we should call her a "comedy actress", and the existing one as an "arthouse actress". as their roles could easily change in the future. - Arjayay (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I found out now that, The second Ishita Sharma is aware of this confusion and she has changed her name to Ishita Raj though Indian Media still prefers her as Ishita Sharma. If you check the URl it's Ishita.sh (short for Sharma} https://www.facebook.com/ishita.sh. The one with Wikipedia page don't have her page verified and has less likes. https://www.facebook.com/OfficialIshitaSharma . There is no reliable source that one is popular than other. I wrote that above to explain the situation. Anyway i found a way to deal with this situation.The Avengers (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Message reading: "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification..."

Hello Hello,

I received the above message on the top of my article on Gerald Schwarz (mathematician) and proceeded to verify all claims with credible references, such as peer-reviewed articles, books, professional websites and the like.

The message remains, and I don't know what to do to either: (1) remedy the situation with additional references, if that's what the reviewer is looking for; or, (2) have the message removed, if it is no longer applicable. Can you help? Thank you. Margery 146.115.137.115 (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Margery. In my opinion, the article now has adequate references. As the article is now in main space, it is no longer being actively reviewed. Any editor can add such tags if they feel that an article has problems, and any editor can remove tags if the problems are resolved. I removed the tag, and added the article to a category. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation Warning

How do I submit my oage for review, so as the citation warning is removed from my page Alanryanlimerickireland (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alanryanlimerickireland. I have removed one of the tags from Jackie Ryan since the article now has more references. I left the other because the article still has problems with tone and style. Please read about the neutral point of view. The article has promotional words and phrases in Wikipedia's voice, such as "first taste of All-Ireland glory", "fierce excitement", and "peerless", to give just a few examples. It is OK to include such evaluative language in a direct quote from a reliable source, but otherwise, your prose should be dry and factual. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What to do against someone who tries to distort facts?

I am new to wikipedia. Although account is not new but started using it from last few months. So, recently I edited a page because it clearly had wrong information. But a guy frequently undoes my edit. Few days back he came to my talk page and started saying my edit is not constructive and I should read guideline and so so! But I clearly showed him the proofs behind my edit, still he is adamant to accept the facts. Now as I am new, I have some limitations but I can say my edit is 100% correct (even ready to show proof).

Now what can I do against his vandalism? Amfmaads (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC) (Amfmaads (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Do not refer to a content dispute as vandalism. Calling an edit with which you disagree vandalism merely because you disagree is a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Amfmaads, and welcome to the Teahouse.

First, one of the core policies of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. This means you should not assume another editor's motivation is vandalism, even if they make edits you disagree with.

Second, I have looked at the edit history of List of Nobel laureates by country, and it appears to me that Filpro's edits there are correct. If someone is born in a country they are generally considered to be of that nationality, unless they take the extreme step of renouncing their citizenship. This does not preclude that person from having another nationality as well, such as one inherited from a parent, or gained when their country of birth changes name or status. For example, Freddie Mercury was born in what was Zanzibar in 1946, but Zanzibar merged with Tanganyika to become Tanzania in 1964.

So, unless your proof is that the Nobel laureates in question were not born in places that were part of India at the time of their birth, you should stop reverting Filpro's edits.

I hope this has clarified things for you. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 03:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)p

Atfirst, I am sorry for my presumption. Now coming to the point, this case is not as simple as you explained. I hope you have a good knowledge about Indian Subcontinent and Partition of India. After partition, those who were in Pakistan or migrated to Pakistan had renounced their Indian citizenship. They instead took up new citizenship of being Pakistani. Same thing occurred after 1971 in Bangladesh(People of then East Pakistan gave up their Pakistani citizenship with a exception of few). It wasnt like that after 1947 partition, all the people of Pakistan retained their Indian citizenship along with being Pakistani. Thus, although Abdus Salam and Muhammad Yunus were born in India, they are Pakistani and Bangladeshi respectively. Here is an Indian Newspaper which gave the list of Indian Nobel Laureates : http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indian-nobel-prize-winners-in-pictures

And also to remember India before 1947 is not the same India as today. It was under British rule, governed by Government of India Act.

The citizenship process you mentioned is not applicable for all countries. For example, the country we were talking about, India, does not allow dual citizenship. Amfmaads (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

At the top of the article, Amfmaads, it says:

"Some laureates are listed under more than one country, because the official website mentions multiple countries in relation to the laureate. If a country is merely mentioned as the place of birth, an asterisk(*) is used in the respective listing to indicate this. In this case, the birth country is mentioned in italics at the other listings of this laureate. For the same award, two birthplace related listings occur when the place of birth is currently in a different country than at the time of birth." (emphasis added to indicate that Wikipedia goes by what countries the Nobel Committee says laureates are from)

These conventions have been established by consensus among a number of other editors, and it is poor form to change such established formats just because you personally disagree with them. If you think you have a compelling argument for why the article's listing conventions should be changed, the way to proceed is to post about it on the article's talk page. Then other editors can discuss the matter with you, and develop a new consensus. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 06:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. Thatswhy, if you see the list of Bangladesh and Pakistan where Muhammad Yunus and Abdus Salam are listed, you can see their birthplace details is mentioned(like born in then India, now ...), exactly the same way Nobel Committee says they are from. And as you said, birthplace related listing should be done, then there should be separate list for USSR, Ottoman Empire etc.

And it is clear, the thing is not what I agree or disagree but the thing is I am talking about facts. Didnt you see the proof I have given you? Amfmaads (talk) 12:5, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the dispute resolution policy. It will tell you to discuss the issue on the article talk page, and, if that does not resolve the dispute, you can follow one of the procedures for content disputes, such as moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClenon Amfmaads (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Problem fixing references on Bot Colony article

I've made some edits to the Bot Colony article. There seem to be problems with the references at the end of the article, but as I started editing today, I'm not yet able to deal with them. Sensebased (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorted. One misspelled named reference, one named reference that had been deleted in a previous edit (reinstated).-- Elmidae (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Greater Long-eared bat

Hi I have just edited a page for the Greater Long-eared Bat but I think it should have done a new page for the South-eastern Long-eared Bat - Nyctophilus corbeni. I had to do this for a university assessment and once I started I thought it really should have it's own page. What should I do? The assignment is due now, and will have to leave on the page for the present but how can I rectify it so the South-eastern Long-eared Bat has it's own page?

Jane Bailey-Crass (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jane Bailey-Crass, and welcome to the Teahouse. To create the new article, visit the Article wizard page and follow the instructions there. You should be able to use much of the content you put in the other article into the new one. Unlike school, at Wikipedia there is no deadline, so worry about your assignment first, and then build the article. (Also, it's its own page, not it's own page.) —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

How to get a translation of a Wikipedia page into English done most effectively

Hello,

I started to create an article on the 2015 European Heat Wave - there is an excellent article on the German Wikipedia, at URL https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitzewellen_in_Europa_2015 .

I would like to take substantial amounts of the content there, translated, and put on the English page - I made a start and submitted the article, granted it was only a start with a few % of the full content, but all I had time for.

How could I get an article accepted which already had the structure that I think would be relevant, so that other enthusiastic editors could chip in ?

Thanks for your suggestions Breggen (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Breggen, and welcome to the Teahouse. Translating articles from other-language Wikipedias is a great idea. To credit the editors at the other project porperly, include ''This article incorporates text translated from [[:de:Hitzewellen in Europa 2015|the corresponding article on the German Wikipedia]] as of [date].'' in the References section of the English article. Note that in order to be acceptable here, an article must be cited to reliable sources; the German Wikipedia wouldn't count, but the sources it cites might. You're welcome to list German-language sources in articles on English Wikipedia, though of course English-language sources are appreciated. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)