Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cephlopoid (talk | contribs) at 11:22, 3 October 2016 (→My edit is being deleted unfairly and ruthlessly by an adminstrator: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Melecie, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.
Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host
New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

My edit is being deleted unfairly and ruthlessly by an adminstrator

I have made an edit to an article -Benham's Top- that was so full of "Big words" that my Grandson aged 14 couldn't understand it. I can only imagine that as "big words" were omitted from my edit, that marianna251 decided it was not constructive or highbrow enough, yet my Grandson and his friend gleaned the only bit of information from the entire article by reading my paragraph. marianna251 has no interest in what I have to say and is just being destructive. My edit was constructive and a legitimate attempt to make the content easier to understand. 

It is a crusade of mine to persuade people with a want to exclude those without a Phd in the subject of their article to make the content accessible to less highly educated individuals. Is this so wrong? Cephlopoid (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another means to contact a user

instead of just the talk page? The message I want to send is a gentle reminder not to be uncivil, even if only in the edit summary description. I don't want to make my comment public on the user's talk page because the person has a lot of nice comments/messages and I think the person would be embarrassed by my comment. Which, unfortunately, might possibly result in anger and maybe even retaliation/escalation of some sort. I couldn't find a link to send an email (which I have seen on other user talk pages) or any other means to send a message. Is there another option? I really would like to be as tactful as possible because I think this person's actions aren't a common occurrence. I do not want to make any formal complaint, either. Bubbecraft (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bubbecraft. More information about the e-mail feature is available at Wikipedia:Emailing users. It sounds like the user you want to contact hasn't activated that feature. As far as I know, there's no other way to contact a user than using their talk page, unless they give contact details on their user page. Is there a way that you could word a public comment in such a way to minimise the potential for embarrassment? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If the user has an email account registered with Wikipedia, then there'll be a way on their user page of sending a message to it. But I'd advise against that. Like many active users, I receive various mild rebukes and suggestions for improvement on my talk page, they don't make me angry, and I try to learn from them. But if I received one instead by email, I might wonder about the motives of the sender. Maproom (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a one time moment of poor choice of words from an experienced editor, just ignoring it is a valid approach. Murph9000 (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bubbecraft: Hello. There is a very strong cultural norm among active Wikipedia editors in favor of transparency and communication visible to everyone. Yes, there are clearly defined exceptions to that general principle, related to legal issues, threats, "outing", harassment and the like. But I do my best to keep about 99% of my Wikipedia discussions openly visible right here on Wikipedia. Yes, I shoot the breeze with other editors on Facebook sometimes, but even my Facebook page is public, and my comments there are general and not article-specific. I recommend that you adopt the same attitude. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, an anon user has just inserted his/her company products with external links to their website into the Prestressed concrete, Precast concrete, Hollow-core slab and Concrete slab articles.

As a recent significant contributor to some of those pages I was unsure about reverting, as I don't want to appear biased against their contribution. I do see there is some (pretty minor) relevance of their product, but they have put it up-front of all other more significant applications, plus there's their use of inline refs to their website.

Being pretty new here I haven't reverted anything before, so maybe someone else should take a look & decide if their edits are OK? Thanks ❮❮ GEEKSTREET Talk Lane ❯❯ 03:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. their IP = 105.225.61.162 ❮❮ GEEKSTREET Talk Lane ❯❯ 03:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ❮❮ GEEKSTREET, welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for raising your concern about those edits. On the balance of probabilities, I decided that it was primarily promotional link spam and reverted them. The other changes in their edits didn't seem to be substantial, and had the appearance of attempting to disguise the spam. Murph9000 (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My photos continued to be deleted

I uploaded them again, I think I did it correctly. Can someone review my article (Aaron Resnick architect) to make sure they won't be deleted again? ) Thank you, michaelphmccartyMichaelphmccarty (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelphmccarty With regard to File:Resnick wright and henken.jpg, you say that you took the photo yourself within the last six months, but the article says Resnick died in 1986: how is this possible. —teb728 t c 04:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Likewise File:Resnick and wright.jpg and File:Aaron Resnick.jpg. —teb728 t c 04:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a picture or a scan of an existing picture does not allow you to claim it as your own work. Meters (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation artcile

I received the following message for the article Phil Day I have submitted:

'Disambiguation will be required when this draft is accepted. Robert McClenon'

I realise now that I should have titled the article: Phil Day (artist)

How do I correct this?March1310 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, March1310, welcome to the Teahouse. Don't worry about fixing that right now. Robert (or another reviewer) should deal with that for you if the draft is accepted. It's not a problem, and should be nothing to worry about. Murph9000 (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Murph. March1310 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a draft revision for review

I am trying to do a major revision of a page in Wikipedia and the revision I made was deleted by a Wiki-editor. So I would like build a draft of the page and work with an Teahouse editor to review. Where/how do I create the page - in my sandbox OR? And how do I invite feedback? Roadcat8Roadcat8 (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Roadcat8: Welcome to the Teahouse. Does your question have to do with Bastyr University? I see that you tried to make major changes there a few months ago and were reverted. You should discuss any proposed changes at Talk: Bastyr University, and gain consensus there. Your edits must comply with the neutral point of view and must summarize what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. Because of the extensive criticism of this school for being pseudoscientific, I also suggest that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a new politician's profile

I am struggling to find the template

Any suggestion will be appreciated

AFabius7 (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AFabius7. There is no template in the sense that I think you mean it. Creating a new page is one of the harder tasks in editing Wikipedia, and it is unfortunate that so many new editors plunge straight into it. In addition, you have a misconception, very common to people who are not experienced in editing Wikipedia, that Wikipedia contains "profiles". It does not. It contains neutrally written articles, based almost entirely on what has been published about the subject by people unconnected with the subject. At present, your draft Sidney Cordle does not contain a single reference of any depth: they are all mere listings. In order for there to be an aryicle about Cordle in Wikipedia you require several sources where people who have no connection with him have written about him at some length, and been published in reliable sources (the Wikipedia jargon for this is that he be Notable). Your sources are reliable enough, but they are mere listings, and do nothing to establish notability. It may be that he is notable (though I don't think he meets the special criteria in WP:NPOLITICIAN) but at present the article does not establish this, and is liable to be deleted.
The draft is reasonably crafted, but most of the information in it is unreferenced, and this is not acceptable, particularly for an article about a living person.
Please read Your first article. If you cna find suitable sources that will establish notability, then I recommend you Move it to Draft:Sidney Cordle so that you can work on improving the sourcing without worrying about it being deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sidney Cordle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) already exists. Notability? Very, very questionable. I think the OP is asking about another member of the same party, which is slightly less significant, electorally, than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a pages links to a dead website should i delete the link or link it to the archive.org page? Joeylockie (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linking it to the archive site would be preferred. Also, I think there's a script you can run to retrieve or replace dead links. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Is there a tutorial, guide, procedural explanation, help or other area where I can find assistance with formulating a proper RFC? Bubbecraft (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubbecraft: There's quite a bit of guidance at WP:RFC. If you're finding that insufficient, could you explain more fully what it is that you want to know? Deor (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standards and fairness regarding competitive group homework

My Computer Graphics class at Rutgers University is having a semester-long homework of editing articles on many crowd simulation/navigation related topics. The homework is competitive, meaning we will be graded relatively compared to other classmates, and more/better contributions mean better grades. The problem is, some of us follow Wikipedia policies of making a draft and talking first, but others go ahead and edit/make the article, sometimes with un-Wiki-like titles. I admit that the topics I'm assigned may be broad and not that notable(I have talked to suggest splitting Crowd Analysis & Crowd Management and Optimization into 2 articles because Draft:Crowd Analysis(not my draft) and Draft:Crowd optimization(my draft) are quite different), but there are multiple students assigned to each topic and we have to edit them soon, and if there's no clear guidance, I suspect we'd have to edit whatever articles that exist to get credits. I'm not asking that our drafts should be accepted, but if they don't, something should be done about the existing article, maybe just split it as it is, otherwise people may feel that following Wikipedia standards is actually punished. -Qd33 cs (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the original poster is saying that assigning competitive homework and asking to have it submitted to Wikipedia is a terrible idea, I think that it is a bad idea academically, but I know that it is very unfortunate for Wikipedia. I see that some of these articles are going through Articles for Creation but some are simply going into article space without adequate review. See WP:Student assignments, which the professor didn't do. Thank you for alerting Wikipedia to this problem. It isn't the first time that Wikipedia has had a problem with professors assigning assignments in a way that is contrary to how Wikipedia is intended to work. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rutgers University is a respected institution. So it's sad to learn that one of its professors has required students to make improper use of Wikipedia, presumably without first reading (as the OP has done) how things work here. Maproom (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the assignment requirements told us to follow Wikipedia guidelines, but did not make clear what are the guidelines, or how our grades depend on following the guidelines, and both the professor and students are generally pressed for time. I have posted on the class's internal forum as well, and will update when professor or others clarify things. -Qd33 cs (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the professor has asked several groups of students to try simultaneously to create articles on the same subject, s/he deserves a Fail. But I commend your loyalty. Maproom (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social media as sources

Hi. Can I ask social media sites like instagram, facebook or twitter be used as reliable sources? For example, can I use the official instagram post by idols to use as a reliable source? Also, can twitter or facebook accounts manned by official entertainment agencies be used as a reliable source as well? And by the way, these social media accounts are also verified by the respective sites, i.e., with a blue verified icon. PSY111 (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The answer is mostly no, see WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And pinging PSY111 so he/she might see this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a common-sense exception to the rule that social media should not be used because they are unreliable sources. Social media that can be verified to be those of the subject of an article may be used as sources for what the subject says about themselves (in most cases). They may not be used as sources about second parties or third parties because they are not fact-checked. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon It´s a minor thing, but I disagree with your choice of words here. I would rather say that in most cases, what the subject of an article says about themselves on their social media, is not relevant for the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the subject's (proven) social media may be useful in cases such as "Subject was arrested/accused of some misdeed{cite a news source} but subject posted a denial on his social media page the day after the alleged incident.{cite social media}". Such use is of course subject to the usual rules such as WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS and others. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A person's social media account is also considered reliable for things like their birthday, which can be very hard to find elsewhere. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It shouldn't be. Many people lie about the year of their birth. Maproom (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People seldom lie about the date of their birth. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody lies about their age. In LA, at least. [1] Mduvekot (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

California Enacts Law Preventing IMDb Pro From Listing Actors’ AgesGråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bill was narrowly crafted to apply only to “commercial online entertainment employment providers” that charge a “subscribers” fee, as does IMDb Pro. Online publications such as Deadline Hollywood, The Wrap and Variety – which can be viewed for free – are not subject to the law.

According to that article, it should not apply to Wikipedia (but I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and we can't take legal advice from that article). Realistically, I believe the only way any requests to WP (which cite that law) can be handled is the same way as WP:LIBEL (email to info-en-q) or via the WMF legal counsel, assuming the content in question is properly sourced. We, as volunteers, shouldn't be making legal decisions, other than to remove obvious cases which fall under WP:BLPREMOVE (or similar). If it becomes a frequent thing, we can get advice from the WMF legal counsel.
Murph9000 (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit the title of an article?

How do I edit the title of an article? Need to change lower case letter to capital of nounDerick Balser (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Derick Balser. You do this by moving the page. This is outlined at Wikipedia:Moving a page, but the simple answer is that there is a move option on the "Page" drop-down menu at the top-right of the screen. However, in order to move a page, your account must be autoconfirmed, which happens once it is four days old and you've made at least 10 edits. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A more serious issue is that the article you created, Bryan balser, is completely unsourced. New, unsourced articles about living people are deleted as a matter of policy. You should also consult Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, as your username suggests some relationship with the article subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have renamed the page for you. The issues with sourcing and possible COI remain. Murph9000 (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current Event Relevant for Wiki Page?

I think this should have its own Wiki entry/page... This is happening now, and it's said to be the largest Prison Strike in USA history: Starting in September 2016, large, coordinated prison strikes are currently taking place place in 11 states, with inmates claiming they are subjected to poor sanitary conditions and jobs that amount to forced labor.[187][188][189] Organizers, which include the Industrial Workers of the World labor union, assert it is the largest prison strike in U.S. history.[187]

What do you think? Love, me Seamonkey (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seamonkey, welcome to the Teahouse. I think it looks like you possibly copied that from another article, going by the reference numbers included in it. You did't actually copy the references, so we can't see them. If we knew where that was copied from and could see the references, that might help us give a more informed comment on it. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the last paragraph of Incarceration in the United States#Employment. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

accidentally MOVED an article

i just created an article, but by mistake it was saved as a DRAFT. I tried to publish the article, and MOVED it to Wkipedia.

thanks Vincent CarlisleVcarlisle (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a Draft. It isn't ready for article space because it doesn't have footnotes that are required for a biography of a living person. Also, you probably don't know this, but Wikipedia space is not article space. You moved it into Wikipedia space, but Wikipedia space is for pages about how to use Wikipedia, such as this Teahouse, or policies and guidelines, not for articles. Unfortunately, I can't move it back to draft space, because the draft page still exists, even though it was blanked (and it isn't necessary to blank a page following a move). I think that I will request that an administrator move it back to Draft space, so that you can work on references for it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the use/function of Wikipedia space. I intended to save it as a draft but I moved it to Wikipedia space (and the blanked it) completely unintentionally.

I was actually going to proceed to include foot notes, links and sources and then realized the mistake I made.

Thank you very much for your time and help!!!

Vincent Carlisle Vcarlisle (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your page has been moved to draft space. Please add the references to it and then submit it to AFC for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN, Can burden/onus shift?

My question is regarding, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

To simplify asking my question, I'm referring to the editor who wants to add/restore material as PRO and the editor who wants to remove it as ANTI.

The environment is an RfC.

In the instance where PRO has provided verifiable sources, can ANTI challenge based only with assertions and no sources (of any kind)?

Then, PRO provides more sources and ANTI responds solely with points to WP:BURDEN and statements like "you have not convinced me."

This goes around and around with no consensus/agreement on whether ANTI must also substantiate/prove assertions.

What I'm also trying to ask is whether the onus has shifted from PRO to ANTI to substantiate position?

If not, how does PRO proceed? How can PRO provide sufficient valid and verifiable sources to meet the burden of proof? What is the bar, when is preponderance met? Is the burden of proof strictly on PRO? Bubbecraft (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bubbecraft, welcome to the Teahouse. It's difficult to answer this without really knowing the context, and I'm not going to enable a "THQ said it was ok" addition to an ongoing dispute (which might not be your motive, it's just very difficult to judge this in isolation, and I have deliberately chosen not to look at your edit history, so that I can remain uninvolved / unbiased in this reply). My gut feeling is that if facts are challenged, then supported with a good reliable source, then the challenge can't really directly continue without refuting the source as either not supporting the facts or not being reliable, or alternatively providing a different source which contradicts it. Normally, if the sources are good and support the facts, that should be the end of a simple WP:UNSOURCED challenge (but there may be other reasons to dispute the addition of the content, such as relevancy or excessive detail).
Overall, this really sounds like it's probably an issue for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, assuming that this has primarily become an issue around sources. I think that is where it should be taken if there's no sign of reaching agreement at your current venue. Or, for a wider or more general content dispute, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Certainly you should not be "going around and around", as that can cause increased tension and usually isn't constructive, so use the official processes available to seek an impartial ruling when you basically hit a deadlock. The Teahouse is not really a suitable venue to formally break a deadlocked dispute, we can only really give informal advice and point to the formal processes. If you have already escalated beyond simple discussion on the talk page, avoid the appearance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. You are welcome to ask more questions here, but I feel that this issue isn't really one for the Teahouse. See also: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Murph9000 (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bubbecraft, some important points to add to that. If consensus exists to exclude the content, or this goes far beyond being a simple issue (such as a highly contentious topic or subject area, or one where existing formal rulings exist), simply providing sources may be insufficient to justify its inclusion, and change from the long standing state of the content probably should be based on consensus or new rulings. Murph9000 (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sufficiently clear. The sources provided aren't being challenged, only dismissed. The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard states it doesn't cover ongoing RfC's: cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. Where else should I look for clarification of the "Burden of Proof?" Or resolution? (I'm lost.) Bubbecraft (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bubbecraft, ok, then maybe something else from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Possibly a third opinion (for a 1 vs. 1 dispute), or mediation. Certainly the Teahouse isn't a good venue to resolve an issue like this, it's primarily for friendly informal discussion and general advice about editing (with an emphasis on helping new and less experienced editors). I'm wondering if this is really about the sources, or more a (should it / shouldn't it) be included type issue (for some other reasons); if that's more what it is about then focussing on the sourcing may not be the best approach. There are various reasons to exclude something beyond sourcing. Could it be that one side is focussed on sources and the other is focussed on another good justification, so you are really both failing to properly address each other's issues? Murph9000 (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also haven't looked at the edit history, in order to comment on the stated abstract hypothetical question. I agree with User:Murph9000 that posing this sort of hypothetical question at the Help Desk or the Teahouse is not helpful, and Murph9000 has been courteous and as helpful as they could be under the circumstances. I am deeply cynical when an editor poses a hypothetical question of this sort, because, first, the summary of the situation, while not inaccurate, is usually slightly biased, and, second, the purpose typically is to obtain an advisory opinion that will then be used to wikilawyer an argument. If there is an open RFC, the RFC outranks all other methods of dispute resolution, so that User:Bubbecraft is right that DR, for instance, is not available. The only advice that I have at this point is to provide the best argument that you can, without bludgeoning or being tendentious, and to let the RFC run its course. If another party to an RFC is disruptive, administrative attention can be requested at WP:ANI. Now, having said that, I will look at the edit history. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at Category talk:People of Jewish descent, I will comment that I was unfortunately right that User:Bubbecraft does appear to be asking for some sort of abstract argument. I have a few more comments. First, it's a bad RFC, because the RFC doesn't ask a question, and so it only encourages lengthy argument, which is in progress. The Original Poster's posts are too long, difficult to read, and have something of the nature of a filibuster. My own opinion, having read the RFC, is that the RFC should be withdrawn as poorly worded, and a new RFC formulated, or formal mediation requested. In any event, the Teahouse can't answer it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Robert McClenon, I didn't realize my own mistake and I appreciate your correction. I also appreciate your suggestion and have requested the RFC be withdrawn and reworded. (At least I hope that's what I did.)Bubbecraft (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working with the Wikipedia Library

I'm having difficulty with navigating the help screens regarding open access portals. Is this the only list? I recently came across a few that aren't included here and I'd like to suggest adding them. What's the best way to do that? Thanks. Kekki1978 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bilderberg Org

We need to expose the Bilderberg Org as far and wide as possible. (Redacted)

I may not have much of an intelligence, but I am not dumb, as I think on a different level, so I see things differently than intelligent people; I have different glasses I can see through.68.134.99.9 (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, IP user, "exposing things as wide as possible" is not among the functions of Wikipedia, and nor is soapboxing, irrespective of the merits of the cause. --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new page

I set up a page for a new phenomenon called the un-convention, and I'm starting to add to it. But it has already been marked for deletion. Is there a way to start it off as a draft so that it is not public and I have some time to flesh it out.

Chris Leone

Chrisb01 (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chrisb01, welcome to the Teahouse. At the moment, your article has the appearance of essentially just being an advert and link for the organisation. Most importantly, there's no indication of notability. Unless you can prove notability through references to good independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage, your article is unlikely to be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. On the other hand, if you do have good widespread, independent, in-depth (not just brief or passing mentions) media coverage that talks about the organisation, it may qualify. Basically, Wikipedia only has neutral point of view encyclopaedia articles about the most significant organisations in the world, and the remaining 80–90% (or more) are excluded until they achieve demonstrable notability. So, address the notability question first, and read Wikipedia:Your first article, then create it as an Articles for Creation draft only if the notability is there and verifiable. There is an official review process as part of AfC, to ensure that articles are ready for publication and do not face deletion. New drafts should demonstrate their notability at an early stage, so that we know it's more than just an advert. Note also the Conflict of interest policy, if you have a direct connection to the organisation; any COI must be declared up front, and we can work with people who openly declare their COI. Murph9000 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Create a wiki

I need to create an wiki website without MediaWiki installed. GXXF T • C 17:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GXXF, welcome to the Teahouse. This page is primarily for new or less experienced editors to ask questions and seek help about editing English Wikipedia, so your question seems to be off-topic. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF, who provide the Wikipedia servers and own the trademark) does not provide hosting for miscellaneous wikis, only those within the scope of its various projects. From the limited information you have given, I believe you need either one of the various wiki hosting providers, or a general server hosting provider. We can't help with non-WMF servers. You can find general information about the MediaWiki software on the MediaWiki site, which is also the appropriate place to ask any questions about MediaWiki itself (that are not directly related to Wikipedia / Wikimedia). If your project is something that should be hosted by WMF, we can probably point you in the right direction to contact them about it. Please don't ask for advice on choosing a hosting provider here, or for things related to a non-WMF wiki, as it's the wrong venue for those questions and any advice given may be incorrect. It's also the wrong place for general MediaWiki or WMF questions, but that would at least be something where we could maybe point you to the correct place, if we know exactly what you are looking for. Murph9000 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Drago Petrovich

hi will you please help me with the article of ivandragopetrovich — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAN12345 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IAN12345. It is unfortunate that, like many people, you have registered with Wikipedia, and immediately tried one of the most difficult tasks there is in Wikipedia: creating a new article. Please read Your first article carefully. Among its point, you will see:
  • Notability: only topics which have already been written about extensively by independent people are suitable subjects for Wikipedia articles. Sports people who have not yet debuted are very unlikely to meet that criterion yet. Please see TOOSOON.
  • Sources: a Wikipedia article should be based nearly completely on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about the subject. If you can't find a reliable published source for some information, don't put it in a Wikipedia article.
If you can find sources, (which must be reliable, so no social media or blogs, substantial, so not just a listing, and independent, so nothing written or published by Petrov or his associates, or based on an interview or press release) then it might be worth writing an article, and you can ask for somebody to move your draft to Draft space so you can work on it. If you can't find such sources, then I suggest you give up. It may be that in a year or two he meets the criteria for notabillity, and then somebody can write an article on him. --ColinFine (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also the advice at User talk:IVANDRAGOPETROVICH. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I have edited some tamil scripts with proven summary but someone removed it how can i solve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adith03 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adith03. I've only looked at three of your edits, but each of those was reverted by Mean as custard with a summary "Revert uncited changes" or similar. If you are going to add material - especially material which might be seen as controversial - you must cite a reliable published source. Please see Referencing for beginners.
I also see that in one case you undid Mean as custard's reversion. This is called "edit warring" and is not allowed. Once somebody has reverted your change, if you wish to take the matter further you must discuss it with them. See BRD. --ColinFine (talk)

Question About Specific and General Notability Guidelines

I have a general question about specific notability guidelines and general notability. I reviewed Draft:Angie Craig and declined it for two reasons. First, the article is non-neutral and reads like an endorsement of Craig. Second, she doesn’t satisfy political notability guidelines because she isn’t a member of the US House of Representatives (a national legislature), only a candidate for the House of Representatives. Although the reason for my decline was tone, my question has to do with notability. My question is whether it is reasonable to use a strict standard of general notability guidelines when there is a specific notability guideline that the subject doesn’t meet, such as candidates for offices or college athletes (who haven’t played professionally) or whatever. In the specific case, I didn’t have to worry about whether the press coverage of Craig’s campaign warranted inclusion, because I could decline for tone reasons, but my question goes beyond her to candidates in general, college athletes, uncharted bands, et cetera. What do other experienced editors think? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, if she meets the general criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people), I believe that would qualify her for inclusion even if her political career does not yet qualify. I believe that one should be used in preference to GNG (but obviously something which clearly qualifies under GNG is probably worthy of inclusion). I don't know for certain, but the obvious answer seems that it should be clearly meeting any reasonably relevant notability criteria, even if the more specific ones are not met. Think of it another way, if there was a prominent business / celebrity / sports / etc person with an existing article that clearly meets notability, we would not delete that article when they were elected to an office excluded under the politician criteria. I don't know if she qualifies in that way, but it could be a valid reason for inclusion. We shouldn't really care precisely how they achieve notability, only that it demonstrably and verifiably exists and clearly meets one or more of our various criteria (just my interpretation, however, which could be wrong). Obviously it still needs converting from adverticle to article. Murph9000 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: My general rule of thumb is that unless a political candidate was notable for other reasons before entering a race, then that person should be covered in a neutral article about the political campaign rather than in a freestanding biography. That seems to be the common outcome in deletion debates about similar articles. In this case, the appropriate article is United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2016#District 2. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with Cullen on that. A paragraph or two in existing articles may be more appropriate, unless they do something to achieve probable long lasting notoriety (or similar). Murph9000 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Stone Tower and question about primary name

I reviewed Draft:Stone Tower, and commented that the author should provide more information about why the stone tower is historically important. The author expanded the draft with an explanation. I also commented that the draft had placeholders, which the author has addressed. The author has asked me whether I will approve the draft now. I would like the comments of other experienced editors. I would also like comments on a naming issue. There is already an article Stone Tower, which is about an album. Either the current article or the draft article needs to have its title disambiguated, and the article with the primary title needs a hatnote. I would prefer to give the primary title to the subject that has been the subject of speculation for more than a thousand years, but that is my opinion. However, if I rename the current article, I will need to rename any articles that point to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to accept the draft – but I'm biased in favour of geographic subjects. I've made some minor edits to it. For the article name, I suggest "Ptolemy's Stone Tower" or "Stone Tower (Ptolemy)". Maproom (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to the main Silk Road article in the prose, which should help provide context. A {{Location map+}} might be an idea, showing the locations mentioned in the prose, if those templates have a suitable map image for the purpose. As far as naming, Stone Tower (Silk Road) might be another possibility. The primary name should probably be the subject with greatest current notability, and I'm not quite certain which that is. Murph9000 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the existing redirect at Stone Tower, Xinjiang, which is for one of the tower's likely locations. Some consideration should possibly be given to where that points to as well. It currently links to a small amount of information on that one location, some of which may be useful for this draft. Murph9000 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be to accept it as Stone Tower (Ptolemy). I have requested that its author tag Draft:Stone Tower (Ptolemy) for deletion so that Draft:Stone Tower can be moved over it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:ATMIA

I reviewed Draft:ATMIA, which has become Very Old, and left the comment to remove “New Article Content”. A previous reviewer had advised not resubmitting the draft. I neither accepted nor declined. It appears to me that the draft, first, is partly about the industry as well as about the association, and, second, has a promotional tone. I also now see that it has redlinks; maybe I should have commented on that. I would also like to ask whether the author has an affiliation with the trade association. Do experienced editors have comments on the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some improvements to the draft – mainly, removing material (content that was not spefically about the subject; a long list of members; a list of divisions). There's plenty of room for more improvements, the non-independent sources in the ref list need pruning. Once it's been tidied up, it may be easier to judge whether it warrants article status. Maproom (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to italicize TV series name in article title

I created the long-overdue list of episodes article for a television series. I just realized that I forgot to italicize the name of the TV show. I don't have access to edit the title after-the-fact (at least not that I can find). I would greatly appreciate it if someone could italicize the Cold Squad name in List of Cold Squad episodes (so that it appears as List of Cold Squad episodes). Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary:, done but for future reference it's done using {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. Nthep (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nthep: Thank you so much! And I learned something new, too. :-) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nour El Houda Bouregua is linked to the wrong French article (and vice-versa), can someone unlink ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for calling this to our attention, GrahamHardy. I have unlinked them. —teb728 t c 21:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italics in section header

I am adding a section header to an article with foreign words in it. Is it conventional or allowed to use italics in a section header? Thanks.S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S Khemadhammo. I took a look at MOS:ITALICS and MOS:SECTIONS, and AFAICT neither says anything either way. I then tried a search and the results I'll post below but I think based on this round up, it looks okay to do so: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Headings/Archive#Italics in section headers (the problem it indicates is something to consider but that discussion's from 2006 so it might be fixed); Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 116#Italics in section headings; Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 June 17#Italics in section headings?; and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baden-Powell House/archive01 ("Also, don't be afraid to use italics in section headings where appropriate"). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for the efforts! Very helpful.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how to add content directory page

hello, I am ver new to this but i have a passion in writing about up and coming basketball players whether overseas or nba! i am trying to write my first article and its a little more complex than i imagined but i don't want to give up! any suggestions on how to add a content directory on the side with a picture? Tamclendon (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamclendon, welcome to the Teahouse. It's called an infobox. See Help:Infobox for general help. A basketball player can use {{Infobox basketball biography}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, Tamclendon, writing a new article that is accepted is hard, and I wish so many people didn't plunge straight into this difficult task as soon as they signed up. The thing you are asking about is called an WP:infobox, but that is the icing on the cake, first you need to write an article in a way that will be accepted. This means that the fist thing you do, before you ever even think about writing an article, is to find reliable published sources that have no connection with the subject. Please read and follow Your first article . --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But if you find such a source, cite it as a reference and don't copy the whole source verbatim. If you do the latter, the article is likely to be deleted as a copyright violation. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamclendon: Hello. If you want to write biographies of such athletes, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with our notability guideline for basketball players. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template issue

Hi, Template:Essex does not appear in Category:Essex templates, I suspect the issue is caused by misplaced noinclude commands at the end, can someone fix ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GrahamHardy, welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for reporting that. I have made a quick fix which should address the issue. Murph9000 (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make a shortcut key for a block of text (e.g., reference used as RS in many aricles)?

Resolved

I am adding content to many different articles, using the same reference (a standard law-school textbook). I will be doing this over the next few weeks or more. I want to be able to add this reference in a single key stroke (or single combination). I had been opening some article in which I previously used it, or opening a Word doc where I had it stored, copying it to clipboard, then going back to the article line and inserting it. I found it easier to retype the entire reference, than to perform all these steps. The reference is (without the first "<" and last ">") "ref name=CL>Criminal Law Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder<ref/". Is there a way to program some single shortcut key (or single combination of keys) so that this ref is inserted in one stroke?

(Also, could you please ping me if you have a suggestion or answer, so I don't have to watchlist this teahouse page?) MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MBUSHIstory. I don't believe that the Wikipedia editor has a facility to define shortcut keys. Adding the same material repeatedly is not something that often happens, and I don't understand why you think it might be useful here. References in Wikipedia are not just generalised "Further reading": they are adduced to support a specific claim in an article, and if they are to a book, they nearly always point to a specific page or passage. Often, when somebody starts adding links to a particular book to a number of articles, that is regarded as spam. Given that, I strongly urge you to discuss the question before adding your multiple references, either at the talk page of one of the articles, or perhaps at WT:WikiProject Law. --ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, {{U}ColinFine}}. I am taking standard legal textbooks, one at a time, and using them to add sources to existing content in law articles, and to use as RS when I correct that existing content. I know how to add page refs to a single source, once I type it up, but I don't know add the single source in a single stroke. The suggestion below by Cordless Larry is helpful, but I think I will look outside Wiki for how to create shortcut keys. MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One option, MBUSHIstory, which isn't quite as simple as having a shortcut key but does make things a bit easier, is to create a template for the reference and then to copy and paste it into articles as required. I did this with Template:2011CensusEngWalCoB, and there are more examples in Category:Specific-source templates. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, {U|Cordless Larry}}. That's an improvement, but is still a lot of typing. MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In fact, MBUSHIstory, I recommend you stop your editing until you have had some discussion in that WikiProject. It appears to me that you are creating a number of very short articles, some of which probably do not meet the criteria of Notability. One well written article is a benefit to Wikipedia. Ten short inadequate articles are a detriment to it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ColinFine. I will go back and fill out any short articles I create. I am familiar with WP:N. Notability is established by the standard legal text books I am pulling them from, where they are described as "notable", "venerable", "famous", "important", "seminal", etc. In fact, the preface of the above cited text book says, "Of course, this book participates in the classic pedagogic tradition of relying on appellate decisions in actual cases to explicate the doctrines and policy dilemmas of the criminal law... We continue to include some of the most venerable of the illustrative cases..." (That text book is itself venerable.) MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that you read the definition of notability used on Wikipedia, outlined at WP:GNG, MBUSHIstory? It likely differs in meaning from the use of the term in that textbook (though inclusion in the book will likely contribute to establishing notability per Wikipedia's definition). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cordless Larry. Yes, notability as used in the text book is not the same as WP:Notability. And yes, inclusion in a standard textbook establishes WP:notability, or is at least strong evidence for it. MBUSHIstory (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced, MBUSHIstory. A case discussed in several legal textbooks would certainly qualify; but for notability to depend on a single secondary source (remember, primary sources do not contribute), that source would need to be pretty substantial. --ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. MBUSHIstory (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MBUSHIstory. If you are using Windows, I suggest that you try AutoHotkey. It is a free program for creating and using macros. I use it for a variety of things that I found myself typing frequently in my work on Wikipedia. (I have no affiliation with the producers of AutoHotkey. I just read about it, tried it, and liked it.) Eddie Blick (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MBUSHIstory: Hello. I would like to raise another concern. I believe that you should include more bibliographic information in your book references. The title should be italicized, per our Manual of Style. The publisher, the ISBN number and the relevant page numbers should be provided. I suggest wikilinking the publisher and the authors, if they have Wikipedia biographies. I link the book title to its Google Books page, which provides more information about the book. Using Template: Cite book standardizes all of this, and reminds you to furnish complete bibliographic information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Cullen328. Now that I know about AutoHotkey suggested by Eddie Blick, I can take your suggestion and make a better version of the single reference per your suggestions. MBUSHIstory (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pitcher plant

what is the function of pitcher plant(39.48.121.249 (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user, welcome to the Teahouse. This page is primarily for new editors asking questions and seeking help with editing Wikipedia. For general knowledge questions, please try the Wikipedia:Reference desk, although you may find your questions are answered by our article on pitcher plants. Murph9000 (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting a translation for an article

So I came across this article in Catalonian Wikipedia and I wish to translate it to English. How do I do so? Write a separate, new article in English and then link it to that page under Languages in the sidebar? Cheers Ramthecowy (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ramthecowy, welcome to the Teahouse. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Translation, which may answer most of your questions. Copyright licensing and attribution is one of the most important aspects, so please be sure to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia § Translating from other language Wikimedia projects. If anything is unclear, or you need any more information, please do ask. Murph9000 (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your guidance, Murph9000. Ramthecowy (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I create a page and leave it and come back?

I want to make a wiki page about the professional Rugby League club the Dungowan Cowboys, as I have noticed the North Tamworth bears have a page. Everytime I try to make it someone deletes it because i'm leaving it and coming back. Can I put it on some list so I can come back and edit it later?

Thanks! JakobtheDaddy (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, JakobtheDaddy. The best thing to do is create a draft article via Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and then you can work on it as and when you have time, until it is ready to be moved into the main article space. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, if you are trying to write a hoax article, which File:Jake playing for new zealand.png suggests is the case, then don't bother. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But please start by studying Your first article, JakobtheDaddy, and consider carefully the material on notability. North Tamworth Bears is not a model you should be following: it is essentially unsourced, and unless somebody finds the independent reliable sources that are needed to establish that the club is notable, it is likely to get deleted. People assume (reasonably) that the way to write an article is to write what you know about the subject. It isn't. The way to write a good article is to find reliable published sources which are truly independent of the subject, forget what you know about the subject, and write an article based on the sources. --ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit not reflecting - Deepak Chopra wikipage

Hi, I edited the Books section on Deepak Chopra's Wikipedia page by adding info about a new book 'Radical Beauty' released by him in September. I did this on 23rd September'16 and even gave the ISBN number for verifying this. Initially, I got a message saying 'Approval pending'. Now there is no message and yet the edit is not reflecting on the said page. Why has my edit not been approved? Please help. Zenlife (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zenlife: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit was reverted by JzG with the edit summary "As soon as there is independent evidence of its significance, we'll include it. Wikipedia is not Chopra's storefront." It seems that the editor saw your addition as promotional. If you can reference, for example, an independent review of the book in a reliable source, then perhaps your edit will be accepted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Thank you for your help. Yes, I will add a reference to a review of the book. Zenlife (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zenlife, Jzg's response seems good to me, but please understand that just because they reverted your edit does not automatically mean that they are right and you are wrong. This is part of the way Wikipedia is supposed to work: somebody makes a change that they think is an improvement, and somebody else disagrees and reverts it. One response is, as you are now saying, "Yes, I see that, I'll do it better". Another is to say "No, I think this is a good change, because ... " and start a discussion on the article's talk page. Please read about the bold. --ColinFine (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: Yes, I am still learning the ropes of contributing to Wikipedia. Your input is much appreciated. Zenlife (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/06/health/la-he-lie-age-20130907
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=742385689"