Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 383

Archive 380

Archive 381

Archive 382

Archive 383

Archive 384

Archive 385

→

Archive 390

Reference mark error message

Help-- I seem to have my reference marks incorrectly inserted on my draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Keith_A._Schooley... can someone please correct for me? Thanks, Hillary Chase Hillary Chase (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In the message on your user talk page on 8 July it said (inter alia):"The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners." In each case the words in blue are a wikilink to pages which you ought to read. When you've read those pages, if you have specific questions please come back and ask. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please check now! FrederickJEffington (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Getting there - you need to read the section Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once to consolidate the references - and remove the 5 repeated "stray" references at the bottom - Arjayay (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing my draft - first time writer

I was hoping someone could review my draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michele_Woodward (Catdean (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Catdean: Hello! On a quick glance, it appears to be failing the basic criteria for a stand alone article: That third party-reliably published sources have discussed the topic in a significant manner. There are lots of footnotes, but none of the footnotes meet the three required prongs of the criteria. The significant coverage is not in reliable sources or not third party and the reliable sources are not about her or not in depth. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

making short footnotes for multiple pages on a website

Help:Shortened footnotes explains how "to cite many different pages of the same source without having to copy the entire citation", but it is specific to books or other sources that have pages. I am trying to create an article, or at least a stub, that will refer to a number of different webpages on the same website. I could formulate my question as

Solve for x:

book : page : {{sfn}} etc. :: website : webpage : x

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Different pages on the same website are separate citations. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

So then there's no way to do the detailed sort of citation that {{cite web}} can provide, without repeating most of it for each page? I like to be thorough when I can, but this would not only cost a deal of extra effort but would clutter the reference section with a lot of redundancy. --Thnidu (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

For each web page you will need to provide the title and url anyway so they can be located now and in the future if the website is reorganized. (Book pages don't move around.) Most web page cites then include only the publisher and accessdate. Few web pages list author, date, or many of the details that "cite web" can accomodate. It would help if you give an example of the website you are trying to cite. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma and DGG: Well, that makes sense. See next.

Mnglrph. It was Professional Artist Client Toolkit. It was speedy-deleted –

G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject

 – although I said on the Talk page that I'd be willing to move it to Draft space to work on it further. It seems to me that it wouldn't have hurt to respect that, e.g., by notifying me to do so soon or else. I half expected Wikipedia:Too soon, or Wikipedia:Notability (which would be the same at this point, i.e., "not notable yet"), but WP:PROMOTION seems a bit of a stretch.

I'm not going to fight this, much less edit-war it. Fortunately, I kept a sandbox copy, which I will now put in the Draft namespace under the same name while looking for further verifiable evidence of notability and, if necessary, waiting for more to develop: it is, after all, a pretty new organization. That, I trust, is permissible?:

drafts are not subject to article deletion criteria like "no context" or no indication of notability

— WP:Drafts § Deleting a draft

--Thnidu (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the sandbox draft, I'm not surprised that the article was deleted. There are no references to significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the organisation. You may be safer leaving the draft in your userspace for now, rather than moving it to Draft: namespace. In the latter it would be liable to be deleted after 6 months under {{db-g13}} if the subject hasn't received the coverage to allow the draft to be developed further. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Drafts, and even userspace pages, are subject to deletion as G11 if they are fundamentally promotional. I deleted the article for that reason also, and if you do not promptly improve the sandbox copy, I shall do likewise. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @DGG: I have tagged the sandbox copy {{db-self}}. @David Biddulph: Thank you for your advice. I was intending to wait for PACT to gain more attention in the field (freelance illustration) and become WP:NOTABLE, but user DGG has credibly threatened ↑↑ to delete even my sandbox copy "promptly" had I failed to do so. I have saved a copy of the wikicode as plaintext to my own computer.

  DGG, if you've read this far, I am unhappy with your apparent assumption that I was going to go ahead and post the article to mainspace even without the improvements, which I see to be necessary. As I said above, "I'm not going to fight this, much less edit-war it." I was going to say "I resent", but I am trying to see your point of view as one working to maintain WP's standards. And on rereading at a day or so's remove from last editing it — a separation often necessary in editing and proofreading, with which I am quite familiar — I see how promotional it looks. Yeah. :-( --Thnidu (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

lowercase sigmabot III vs ClueBot III, which one should I use and why?

lowercase sigmabot III vs ClueBot III, which one should I use and why?-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 12:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, what are you trying to do?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Archiving old discussions -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

When I go to the page about that, it suggests ClueBot takes less work but might not do what you want. Lowercase Sigmabot doesn't have as many warnings about what could go wrong.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please help us stop the lie being perpetuated about Oildale California.

Dear Sirs,

Your information about Oildale California is in error. I do not know where you got the census map, but it is wrong. Oildale has been a township for over 100 years. It is even portrayed in a display at the Smithsonian American History Museum in Washington DC. I know you have a hard job to do, trying the keep your information as accurate as possible, but there are forces trying to minimize Oildale's importance. Here is a letter that I wrote to the US Postmaster General:

Dear Postmaster General,

For years the city of Bakersfield has tried to incorporate Oildale, California into the Bakersfield city limits. Not because they are particularly interested in having the Oildale residents as a part of their city, but more for the economic reason that if incorporated, the City of Bakersfield would now have the right to tax some of the largest oil fields in the state of California. Time after time the residents of Oildale have turned down giving up their history and heritage by voting not to become incorporated with Bakersfield.

It appears that the US Post Office in all of their ultimate wisdom has done to Oildale, California that the City of Bakersfield has been unable to do; that is, force Oildale, California to be recognized as a part of Bakersfield. Unlike Bodfish, California (population of maybe a 100+) or Malibu, California (known for their rich and famous), Oildale, California is no longer recognized as an independent unincorporated township, but an official part of Bakersfield. this according to the US Postal Service. Even though Oildale, California has its own world renowned post office (The Buck Owens Post Office) that visitor from around the world come to visit, if I want to send a letter to Oildale, California, the US Postal Service requires me to erroneously address it to Bakersfield, California.

Postmaster General, we would like our 100+ year-old identity back. Even though our past hasn't been prefect, it is still our past and you shouldn't take it away from us. Oildale, California is recognized by the Smithsonian in their display about "Hoovervilles". It is recognized in history books for the top secret U2 spy plane plant that was disguised as a tire factory. It is recognized by the Country Western and Rock and Roll industries in song and by action for Oildale's musician's contribution to their music genre. Oildale, California is a place known in literature, song, movies, and history, but not at all by the US Postal Service.

We ask you to please reinstate the 93308 zip code as officially Oildale, California once again.

I found out from the US Postal Service that the City of Bakersfield is the government entity responsible for submitting the postal data to the US Post Office. On old government maps and previous census it shows Oildale to follow the area covered by the 93308 zip code. If you go to the current US government maps (and Google) you will see that is true.

Please help us stop the lie being perpetuated about Oildale California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oildale,_California 174.134.214.162 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:ADVOCACY. Wikipedia just summarizes sources, it does not try to "fix" the world. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

help getting article approved

Hello! I have been trying to get an article which I drafted published for some time now. After 3 denials/rejections, I am at a loss (though I feel as though I've been improving each draft significantly). The link is below. any help you can provide me with is much appreciated. I NEED to get this approved ASAP!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:California_Indian_Museum_%26_Cultural_Center

Much thanks! Jamey Jameylyn (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, virtually all of your sources are what's called primary sources — the source is talking about themselves. Worse, almost half your sources have the entity you're writing about as author or publisher of the material! This is generally undesirable on Wikipedia. What you want are secondary sources, where someone else is talking about the museum. Now some of your sources are secondary sources, in the current version of the draft, but they aren't the kind of sources known for fact-checking or being a trusted source of news. Newspapers are one of the best sources to use on Wikipedia, and most newspapers love to write about museums. Maybe you should consider submitting some press releases to newspapers in the area where the museum is located. That would be the best way to establish WP:N, which is the only way an article about California Indian Museum & Cultural Center is likely to pass muster on Wikipedia. —GrammarFascist (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

who can help to expand the article?

sir, who can help to expand any aricle in this wikipedia?where we can submit the stub article for expanding?-AJITH MS (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@AJITH MS: Hello! under most circumstances YOU can expand any article! (However, you should probably not directly edit articles where you have a conflict of interest. If you want to alert people's attention to a particular article, you can check on the talk page for any WikiProjects that might be associated with the subject and start a conversation on the project page, or there might already be discussions on the talk page where you can contribute.

If you want to submit an idea for an article about a topic that is not currently covered, you can do so at the "request an article" process. Note the basic criteria required for a stand alone article and if you include suggestions and links for appropriate sources, it is more likely that someone will take up your suggestion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 Thanks--AJITH MS (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@AJITH MS: If you have something like a stub, you can also use the Wikipedia:Article wizard to help. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you--AJITH MS (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Citing multiple non-consecutive pages in a book

I could've sword I read about there being a way to do this, but I just can't find it again no matter what I search under. Howard Sims is the specific article I've been working on, if it helps to see what I'm getting that seems non-optimal (the same book being listed multiple times, for example Vaudeville Old and New, the last reference in the reflist). Is it possible, for it to list each book just once, or is this the expected behavior?

(BTW I know I have 2 different publication years for one of the other books, Amazon gave me two different editions with different dates. I'll be fixing it when I go in tomorrow to add more content and sourcing; it's almost midnight here.) —GrammarFascist (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi GrammarFascist, welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:CITESHORT. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ha, I found it myself, after posting the question of course... it was right on this page I'd seen it! Help:Shortened footnotes. —GrammarFascist (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to refresh before replying, sorry, PrimeHunter. It looks like the cure would be worse than the disease, given how hard a time I have getting my markup right with standard inline citations (thank goodness for being able to preview as many times as necessary to get all the broken tags). Thanks for responding, though! Now I know. —GrammarFascist (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions on proposed restructure of old article.

Jainism is the article, where I have proposed a few restructure suggestions on Talk:Jainism. Please help me in understanding if the approach is right and can it (restructuring) be done -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I need to get an incorrect website listed, changed. How do I do that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parktown_North lists the website for the Parktown North Residents Association as being www.parktownnorth.org.za. This is incorrect as it simply ends with .org and does NOT have a further .za Please help196.209.219.234 (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup, looks legit. I fixed it, thank you for calling it to our attention! Note that you are allowed (and indeed encouraged) to fix any errors you find yourself; if you want, you can just click the "edit" link at the top of the article and fix any errors you see! Cheers. --Ashenai (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

QUESTION

Hello,

I am creating the french version of a page with name Ret. Col. Kokou André Cyriaque DJOHOUN and I am having the page deleted. I'm getting the impression some people are reporting over copyright issues but I have a valid and personal document I am working with.

Can I get an assistance please.

Thank you

BR Felix, A.S André (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi! This is the message you got when your page was deleted:

Bonjour Ret. Col. Kokou André Cyriaque DJOHOUN et bienvenue sur Wikipédia !

L'encyclopédie, et plus particulièrement vos pages utilisateurs ne sont pas un espace publicitaire ou un hébergeur gratuit de contenus non encyclopédiques, tel qu'un CV vous concernant ou concernant l'organisation que vous représentez. Votre page personnelle est destinée à la présentation de vos projets vis-à-vis de Wikipédia tandis que votre page de discussion permet d'échanger avec d’autres contributeurs de l'encyclopédie au sujet de sa construction.

Pour plus d’informations, vous pouvez vous référer à l'aide concernant les pages utilisateurs. Si vous souhaitez créer un article, ce pas à pas vous indiquera les éléments nécessaires (vous pouvez préparer un article dans votre brouillon). Un livret d'aide et le sommaire sont aussi à votre disposition pour l'apprentissage de Wikipédia.

Si vous avez une question concernant le fonctionnement de Wikipédia, n'hésitez pas à contacter le forum des nouveaux !

Je vous souhaite de bonnes futures contributions sur Wikipédia.

I assume you know French; just in case you don't, the issue was apparently not about copyright. The problem was inappropriate use of the user page, which is supposed to contain information about you relevant to editing the encyclopedia, and not a CV about you or your organization. --Ashenai (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What does it mean to be "patrolled by" another user?

I received a message that I was patrolled by an administrator. What does that mean? Do I need to do anything? AshdownAnne (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A user patrolled your user page, not you. New pages (articles, user pages, whatever) are generally marked as "unpatrolled" so that other users know that no else has seriously looked at it yet. Marking it as patrolled usually is an indication that the user did not see any immediate problems or plans on dealing with said problems. See WP:New pages patrol for more information. If your user page has been marked as patrolled and nothing else happened, it's probably appropriate (and looking at it myself, it is). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I do some counter-vandalism via Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol, and pages that haven't been patrolled show up with a red exclamation mark, showing me that no one has taken a look at that page yet, and I should check it out. Marking a page as patrolled just tells other counter-vandalism people "I looked at this page, seems fine." --Ashenai (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Why would a User page need patrolling? After being a registered User on Wikipedia for over five years, and after creating 223 pages, a few minutes ago for the very first time I had another User mark one of my recently created redirect pages as Patrolled. I am also a Recent Changes Patroller, as any User can be. Checkingfax (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

New user pages can (and sometimes do!) contain inappropriate content. Spam, for example, or defamatory statements, or copyright violations. --Ashenai (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, on Userpages I see a lot of this:

“ Excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia ”

Checkingfax (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question and for the info! AshdownAnne (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't figure out which of my sources are causing the page to be rejected

Hi there,

I've been helping a notable Australian magician (Phil Cass) attempt to get his Wiki page up. It's been rejected multiple times due to sources, and I have no idea which of the sources are failing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Phil_Cass

I'm not sure if that link will take you there.

But I am so confused as to what to do next.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Remsington (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, using YouTube as a source would be enough to fail it. Read WP:RS for the full criteria- most of what you have there do not suffice. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Remsington: also please take a look at WP:EL. We only include links to sites outside of Wikipedia in the body of an article if they are being used as part of a citation : ie they are a reliably published source with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight and only include them in the "external links" section if they are directly about the subject of the article.

For a stand alone article, you need to establish that third party reliable sources have discussed the specific subject in a significant manner. In this case the special criteria of WP:ENT may also apply.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

And, Remsington, if you "are helping" him get "his" page up, then you have a Conflict of Interest, and are recommended not to be working on that article at all: please read Conflict of interest. Please understand that even if Wikipedia has a page about him, it will not be his page, he and his associates will have no control over what it contains, and it should be almost 100% based on what people unconnected with him have written about him. --ColinFine (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with this article?

Please advise if there is something else to do to have this Bio published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_E._Garc%C3%ADa-Bol%C3%ADvar

Thank you Juvetorre (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Juvetorre. What is wrong is that there seems to be a lack of sources where people unconnected with Bolivar write at length about him. I have only looked at about a third of the sources given, but I have yet to find a single one which meets that description. Those I have looked at are either mere listings, articles by Bolivar, interviews with Bolivar or articles clearly based on press releases from Bolivar or his institution. It is possible that the book review from Global Arbitration Review has substantial information about the author - I can't see it, so I don't know; but I suspect that a review of that sort of book would concentrate on the book and have little information about the author. The problem is that a Wikipedia article, especially one about a living person, should be based almost 100% on what people unconnected with the subject have written. If there is little written about Bolivar by independent people, then it is impossible to write a satisfactory article about him at present. --ColinFine (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

How do I make updates to my company's page?

Hi Guys,

I'm with a web company that recently had a leadership change and would like that to be reflected on our page. i'd also like to update some numbers (# of users for example) so they're congruent with those on our site. All in all, pretty simple edits, but I have no idea where to start. Could someone help me out?

70.166.132.178 (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope you have a wikipedia page about your company, if not you have to create it according to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). --Aero Slicer 15:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. As somebody associated with the company, you should not edit the Wikipedia article about your company (which is not "your page", by the way), because of your conflict of interest. But you are welcome to put suggestions for improvement on the article's talk page (for example the talk page for IBM is Talk:IBM), so that an uninvolved editor can decide what change is appropriate. Since all information in a Wikipedia article should be cited to a published reliable source, it will be helpful if you give published sources: for the leadership, the company's own website is probably acceptable as a source, but for the number of users, that really should come from an independent source, as the company may have an interest in inflating the number. If you think few people are likely to be watching that particular company's talk page, you can flag your request by adding {{request edit}} (with the doubled curly brackets), and that will put it on a list of suggested edits. --ColinFine (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Devil and Reich

Please advise me on where I can find direct answers on Robert Anton Wilson's adaptation of "The Devil" and whether it had anything to do with "divine androgyny" or if that is just an interpretation made by any who may have directed the play in the past.

Thank you, Kalli Jo Collier

P.S. I also need to know where I can find original works by Wilhelm Reich. I am in the process of adapting "Wilhelm Reich in Hell", the Play, into a Screenplay along with it's originators and I need some back up.

Thanks again, KJC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.136.186.242 (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kalli. I'm afraid you're asking in the wrong place: this Help Desk is for questions about how to use and edit Wikipedia. If you can't find the answers in the articles Devil (disambiguation), Robert Anton Wilson or Wilhelm Reich, then I suggest you ask at the Reference Desk. --ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee

How are they selected? Do they work for WMF ? Some of them has less edits than other administrators and old Content creators/editors. Do they nominate themselves? I mean with less edit counts how they become so powerful, that they can remove administrator's rights. Aero Slicer 16:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And please understand, it is the quality of edits that is important, not the quantity - Arjayay (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History There will be election in Dec 2015. I know about WP:RFA. Where will this election notification be placed? --Aero Slicer 16:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you keep an eye on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the 2014 elections got a banner ad, visible to everyone (possibly just logged-in editors, not sure.) I think there's little chance of you missing this year's election if you're at all interested. --Ashenai (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aero Slicer: Arbitrators are annually elected by the Wikipedia community. They do typically nominate themselves, although sometimes at the encouragement of others. All of them are volunteers like you and me. They do not work for the WMF (although they do share their real-life identities with the WMF as part of the global access to nonpublic information policy to gain checkuser and oversight access). When the community elects arbitrators, the most important qualities they look for are trustworthiness and level-headedness. As Arjayay mentioned, edit count is rarely a good indicator of experience or trustworthiness on Wikipedia—see Wikipedia:Editcountitis for a humorous interpretation of this. Indeed, our most well-respected community members vary greatly in their numbers of edits.

The 2015 Arbitration Committee Elections (WP:ACE2015) will be structured with a "nomination period" between November 8 and November 17. During that time, editors in good standing with at least 500 article edits (notice how deliberately low the edit count bar is set) may nominate themselves, and community members may ask the candidates questions, similar to RFA. From November 23 through December 6, eligible voters (which you are) will be able to cast private votes for or against individual candidates. Usually, notifications of the election appear in your watchlist as well as on Template:Centralized discussion. We are currently discussing whether alternative methods of notification and publicity for the 2015 election should be pursued. Mz7 (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

What is a proper encyclopedia format?

My topic is declined because of improper formatting,what should I do now?Saraswati Singh Rajput (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Saraswati Singh Rajput. I suggest you have a look at an article like cellulitis, and model your work on it. The obvious problems with your draft are:

• The "Introduction" is not an introduction. Wikipedia is for everybody, not just medical students. The average reader may not have any idea what "rhinitis" means. Similarly, the "Pathophysiology" section needs an introductory sentence putting the items in it in context (I have no idea what their relationship is to each other or to the subject).
• While some parts of your draft are in prose, other parts are bulleted lists. Most of these should be written as prose.
• There are no inline references. In Wikipedia, it is not acceptable just to have some general references at the end: every single statement in an article should be individually cited to the appropriate pages of a source, so that a reader has a way of checking that it is correct. Please see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Is a listed company annual report considered a reliable source of information?

The annual report is a public document that is sent to investors and shareholders. It is also verified by independent auditors, so I suppose it is a reliable source. What do you think? StarEye2000 (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes it should generally be reliable but, except for the financial part produced by the indendent auditors, it is not an independent source. So for financial statistics it's usable but for other information such as future plans or corporate strategy it is a self published source and thus "use with care". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your assessment seems correct. I would suggest using wording like "the company reported an annual turnover of $50m in 2014" when discussing such facts in an article's prose (and then using an appropriate citation template to refer readers to the document itself). If you're writing a new draft however, I don't think such sources convey any weight regarding notability because they are effectively commissioned by the companies themselves. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, well understood. What about the story of the company (past mergers and acquisitions for example), can I still use the annual report or should I (for example) find newspapers articles? StarEye2000 (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend doing both. The company should be a reasonable source of info about itself, and for basic facts such as those you can expect it to be generally reliable. However, remember that a company is unlikely to publish negative things about itself - so relying on solely self-reporting may miss a few three-eyed fish. Also a fair amount of what a company reports on itself may be perfectly true, but also too trivial or otherwise unnecessary for an encyclopaedia article. 3rd-party sources are more likely to focus on encyclopaedia-relevant info. (this is basically the long version of Rodger's "use with care" advice). --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring clarification

I wanted to clarify that is it edit warring when I revert the edits done by the editor who removes the speedy deletion tag for more than 3 times. I'm aware of the 3 reverts rule. Thanks. Ayub407^talk 13:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Kind of borderline - they aren't allowed to remove it, so technically you're not doing anything wrong by putting it back. Best to leave it if they persist, though, and report them to WP:AIV instead. As it happens, I've deleted the article now anyway. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There isn't a specific exemption for it in WP:NOT3RR... it's not exactly vandalism. That said, you could probably ignore all rules here and just go ahead. The rule about not removing speedy notices from your own articles is quite clear, and if you're upholding that rule (just to be clear, the editor you were reverting was trying to remove the speedy notice from his own article, right?) then no reasonable person would quote chapter and verse at you.

On the other hand, an even better idea would be to report the person at the 3RR noticeboard when he makes his 4th reversion. That way, everything is on the up-and-up. --Ashenai (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. So let me get this clear. You are saying that I can ignore the WP:3RR in this case even though it's not mentioned in the WP:NOT3RR But in other hand, I should also report that user at WP:AN3 when he/she makes his/her 4th reversion. Ayub407^talk 14:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Um... no. I'm saying that if you kept reverting him, you probably wouldn't get in trouble for 3RR in this case, because it's a valid case of WP:IAR. But a preferable solution would be not to keep reverting, and instead to stop at 3 reverts and report him for his 4th one. No IAR needed. --Ashenai (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification. Ayub407^talk 14:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Disputes

In disputes should all editors treat each other equally? Sociable Computer (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If someone is violating WP:CIV or WP:NPA that does not give the other party free reign to do the same. Editors that are basing their positions on reliable source and policy should be treated differently in weighing what should be included in an article than those that are not. Editors that are simply mouthpieces should not be given equal credence as actual editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much this. As WP:DENY and WP:RBI explain, the best way to deal with unrepentant trolls and vandals is often to communicate with them as little as possible. Revert their talk page rants, ignore them, and move on. That is not an acceptable way to treat good-faith editors, though, even if they are argumentative or troublesome. Civility is even more important if the person you're talking to is angry and unreasonable; you want to de-escalate the situation, not inflame it. --Ashenai (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment User:Sociable Computer has been blocked as a sock of User:TeaLover1996 see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TeaLover1996 Theroadislong (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Event page varticle similar to a different event article was deleted

I tried to create an article for the Tally Shorts Film festival and it was deleted under A7, but this festival has a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Short_Film_Festival

Why is that one allowed to stay but the one I created is not? Mine had more info, had sources, etc. A7 States: "that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" Well mine provided more than the Miami Short Film Festival does so I don't understand seems like a double standard?

Mbauer32301 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are asking how to nominate Miami Short Film Festival for deletion under CSD-A7, the process is to add {{Db-event}} to the top of the page. If you believe that Tally Shorts Film Festival is notable, in your next draft you will need to demonstrate that by supporting the text with in-line citations to references to significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No I'm not recommending Miami Short be deleted I'm trying to understand the double standard. I DID have citations in the article for Tally Shorts and it was deleted anyway. Miami currently DOES NOT have any citations, and it is published, why? I have submitted a new one for review and I just want to understand why some articles exist without any citations, yet mine was deleted?

Thank you, mabuer32301

Mbauer32301 (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The answer is that Wikipedia is edited by volunteers, and it's hard to keep on top of all of the problems that exist with articles. Miami Short Film Festival has evidently slipped through the net (although it has been tagged as lacking references, at least), but hopefully at some point the issues with it will be dealt with. There's a useful essay that's relevant here, at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

OK that makes sense. This is the article I'm trying to add. Any pointers that will help get it accepted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mbauer32301/Tally_Shorts_Film_Festival#I.27m_trying_to_make_this_an_article

Thanks

Mbauer32301 (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the most important thing to consider here is whether the subject meets the requirements set out at Wikipedia:Notability, namely that "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If you find significant coverage, then demonstrate this by citing the sources in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Requesting suggestions for uplifting and old existing article to GA level.

Please help in reviewing and finding out / tagging weak areas to uplift this article Mahavira to GA level.

Please Note: I used the button on top of this article to post this question and it automatically got added at the end. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: The article was peer reviewed a couple of years ago - Wikipedia:Peer review/Mahavira/archive1. If there has been a lot of work done since then you might want to request another review. Nthep (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, how can I do that? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/guidelines is your friend. Nthep (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Nominated for review -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

How to include a coords template into a citation

I want to put inline coords into a citation template. The URL is an image, and I want the title parameter to be "Photograph of <name of item> taken from 27°28′3.36″S 153°1′40.8″E"

But when I put this title into the citation template, it displays on screen like this:

What have I missed? How should I put the coord template inside a citation template? Hebrides (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hebrides hello and welcome to The Teahouse. this sounds like something that should be asked on WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Vchimpanzee. Apologies for posting in the wrong place – WP:VPT would be better. The good news is that in the process of preparing to re-post on VPT I found a solution. It occurred to me that the title was already hyperlinked by the citation template, so to try to incorporate something into it which independently hyperlinked elsewhere was asking for trouble. Sure enough, when I put the coord template into a different parameter in the citation template, the problem was solved.

Closed.

Thank you-- I think I understand and will give it a try. (put reference marks in the body of text-- not in reference section without numbers) 67.86.2.153 (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Cladogram help

I'm having trouble with the syntax of this cladogram. It won't show up (in case you don't know, I copy/pasted it below this sentence). Please help

Relationship of extinct and extant cetaceans:

Wale   Toothed whales   Delphinoidea   belugas (Monodontidae)  Porpoise (Phocoenidae)  Oceanic dolphins (Delphinidae)  Iniidae  Pontoporiidae  Beaked whales (Ziphiidae)  River dolphins (Platanistidae)  Dwarf sperm whales (Kogiidae)  Sperm whales (Physeteridae)  Baleen whales   rorquals (Balaenopteridae)  Gray whales (Eschrichtiidae)  Neobalaeninae  Right whales (Balaenidae)  Janjucetus †  Basilosaurus †  Dorudon †  Rodhocetus †  Remingtonocetidae †  Ambulocetidae †  Pakicetidae †  Raoellidae †

References

Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 03:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dunkleosteus77. I have changed the parameter names title and cladogram to lower case as documented at Template:Cladogram. Parameter names are case sensitive in all characters. The first character is case insensitive in page names but not in parameter names. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

So it should work now? Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 03:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's currently displayed below the contents box to the right but will later display in this section when new sections are added at the top. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 04:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Graduated Ownership - reliable sources

HI,

First thanks for Dodger 67 for sending a message - that's how I got here!

I am trying to publish an article on 'Graduated Ownership' which I am proposing as a new tenure for affordable housing in the UK. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turner1234/sandbox/Graduated_Ownership However, the article has been declined for lack of reliable sources. So my problem is this : insomuch as these are new ideas, their only source is me! Can the author of an article be its reliable source? Look forward to hearing from you with comments. Turner1234 (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Turner1234. The short answer to your question is "no". This is a neutral encyclopedia, and our articles summarize what reliable, independent sources with professional editorial control say about a topic. Wikipedia is not a place to publicize new ideas. Please read our policy about no original research. There are plenty of places to publish original thoughts, but Wikipedia is not one of those places. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Turner1234 have you tried other reputable publishers? There is a chance that if you could get your article published, the ideas could be presented in Wikipedia, but with independent evaluation (from reputable sources not related to you, should such evaluation be done, which isn't guaranteed) of your ideas as the most important sources.

Good to see you back, Cullen328.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I am seeing what can be done on the independent publishing front. Hope to be back soon!Turner1234 (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

help me properly edit my entry

can someone pls help me properly format my entry2601:645:4001:A9E4:94F5:78E0:E438:E9EB (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You will need to tell us which entry you are talking about, so somebody can help you. Gronk Oz (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

How do I do pinpoint citations without repeating the complete info about the source in each reference?

I'm working on an article where I make repeated references to the same source, with pinpoint citations to the page numbers where particular matters are sourced to. I don't want to have to repeat the full name of the source volume and author in each reference.

I've seen articles where the source is listed in a section like "Further Reading", and then the in-line citations link to that source, with different page citations as needed.

however, I've not been able to figure out how to do that kind of linking?

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz
As explained and linked to at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citing multiple pages of the same source

"When an article cites many different pages from the same source, to avoid the redundancy of many big, nearly identical full citations, most Wikipedia editors use one of three options"

Rather than repeat that section, can I suggest you see which option suit your purposes, remembering that you should not change an existing citation style without good reason - Arjayay (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I looked at those before posting my question, and they didn't provide the answer. Here's an example of what I want to do: on the page for President Zachary Taylor, a book by Jack Bauer is cited frequently in the References. The first time that book is cited, it's linked to the "Further Reading" section, where the full information is given for the book. Then, each subsequent reference just says "Bauer" without the link. That way there can be detailed pinpoint citations to page numbers. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The article Zachary Taylor uses the "short citations" option referred to in the Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citing multiple pages of the same source section mentioned above. This is broadly as you describe, except that the books have been manually included in the "Further reading" section.
I could take exception to the Zachary Taylor layout, as the books should be under References, not Further reading, and the page ref's under Notes - but "Notes" is being used for a different purpose in that article.
However, as stated above, the entire article needs to have its references formatted the same way, so if the rest of an existing article is formatted differently, you should stick with that format. - Arjayay (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR userbox?

Couldn't find one. Don't want to make one if it's a duplicate. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR shows Wikipedia:JSTOR/Userbox. It has an undocumented through parameter to replace "The Wikipedia Library". For example, {{Wikipedia:JSTOR/Userbox|through=his university}} produces the below. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This user has access to JSTOR through his university

Cheers blud, much appreciated. Take care! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Bots

Bot is a software. Every bot is owned by Administrators. Do they create the bots themselves? Can non-administrators have bots? If I have an idea for a new Bot with a specific function, then can I ask Administrators who owns bots to create it? Action Hero 07:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Does this help? Wikipedia:Bot requests. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Real Johann Pachelbel or not?

Is the man in the image the "real" Johann Pachelbel, who was the composer of the famous Canon in D ? It seems we have no reason to believe that the "real" Johann Pachelbel has a middle name "Christoph", and the year number "1748" in the picture has nothing to do with our famous composer Pachelbel (1653 – 1706).

Oddly, English and around twenty other language versions of Johann Pachelbel's article still keep these image as the portrait of the composer, while there are lots of discussions like commons:Talk:Johann Pachelbel, commons:File talk:Pachelbel.jpg, commons:File talk:JohannChristophPachelbel.jpg, and even the description of File:Pachelbel.jpg, where editors stated it is obviously not the famous Pachelbel.

If these editors are right, the portrait is obviously and seriously misleading. We should get it away from all these language versions of the article.

Images in question:

• commons:File:Johann Pachelbel Portrait.jpg (File usage on wikis)
• commons:File:Johann Pachelbel.jpg (File usage on wikis)
• commons:File:JohannChristophPachelbel.jpg (File usage on wikis)
• commons:File:Pachelbel.jpg (File usage on wikis)

Tomchen1989 (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Tomchen1989. The propagation of that image to hundreds of uses because of its inclusion here and at the Commons is amazing. This could be our Pachelbel, sure – maybe the sketch was made in 1748 of an earlier painting of him, but the circumstantial evidence against appears pretty strong and at the same time I can't find any evidence to support that it is him. I've looked for portraits, busts, sculptures, images in books and at his gravesite in Nuremberg and come up fairly empty. The 2005 Commons uploader's link for where he got it is dead and the Internet Archive doesn't have it (the 2011 German upload source may be propagating the error, by taking the image from a website, that in turn may have taken the image from the Commons). I also can't find any evidence that this Pachelbel had the middle name Christoph, and as noted at one of the image talk pages, all mentions of that exact name are of someone who appears to have died in 1726, so even that wouldn't gibe with 1748 – and you would think, given his fame, that his middle name, if it was indeed Christoph, would have plenty of mentions in old books. (I've been wondering what this says). I've also just found this discussion in the article's talk archive questioning the image. Since we go by reliable sources, none as yet can be found, and it is certainly questionable, I think we should remove the image from the article. Meanwhile, maybe the German Wikipedia can help. If there is a image of him somewhere we can use, it's probably in Germany and locals might know where the look or inquire. Maybe de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Redaktion Musik?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the principal author of the English Wikipedia article on Pachelbel. The problem is that unfortunately, the most reliable sources (e.g. New Grove, Welter's dissertation, Perreault's catalogue, etc.) neglect to mention that there is no known portrait of Pachelbel. This shouldn't be surprising, as the situation is quite common for most composers before, say, 1700, so a particular reason is needed to specifically mention the lack of portrait, and there is no such reason in Pachelbel's case.

The only time I ever encountered a discussion of the 1748 portrait in academic sources, it was a tiny footnote in a huge German genealogy tome I've used once (unfortunately, I can't find it again – may have been in some edition of Die Kunstdenkmäler von Oberfranken). But it was of little use, since the authors merely discussed what we discussed numerous times – namely, (a) that the image is almost certainly not of the composer, the name and the date being wrong, and (b) that the image should probably remain under some consideration, since it might have something to do with the composer's relatives, or be a copy of some real portrait of Pachelbel supplied with a wrong inscription, and so on. So until the actual Johann Christoph of 1748 is found – and mentioned in a publication we could call a reliable source here! – it seems to me that there is no way to legitimately remove the picture from view, so to speak. (And I have to add that I've done some genealogical research on Pachelbel some 6 years ago, and couldn't find our guy.) --Jashiin (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jashiin: Thanks for responding and your work on the article. I enjoyed reading it. I appreciate everything you're saying right up until the end where you draw the opposite conclusion from the same set of facts and evidence (and negative evidence) as the one I reach, when you say "there is no way to legitimately remove the picture from view". I think the case for removal is compelling and near open and shut. The default is not providing actual or possible misinformation; not including material that cannot be supported by reliable sources; not allowing original research; removing unsupported facts that have been challenged on a rational basis (see e.g. WP:BURDEN). Of course, we're talking here about an image and not text, but the same principles apply. Where we only had no good basis to believe this was Pachelbel, it would be improper to implicitly declare this to be an image of him, by displaying it as him at the top of the article. Where we have actually fairly convincing evidence that it is probably not him, as we do here (now significantly bolstered by your recall of that German source), that is a far stronger case for removal.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What I meant was that I'd be very glad to see the image go – but I'm not very familiar with the process of deletion anything from Commons, and I was worried a case couldn't be made because of some Wiki standards I'm not aware of, or such – the policy being quite strict for having reliable sources, for example. If you or someone else nominated the images for deletion and described the situation the right way, I'd love to join and support. --Jashiin (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jashiin: Apologies. Total misinterpretation on my part. I took the quoted sentence from your post to refer to the inability to remove the image from the article, and see you meant it as removal of the image from Wikimedia. Not sure about that. Certainly, the image description should be modified to not state it is definitively this Pachelbel, and if that's done, I don't think the image actually needs to be deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

I'd like to edit the Nyack College wiki to have provost and executive vice president listed in the infobox underneath the president. What is the code I use for executive vice president? MR1882 (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, MR1882. The infobox is defined in Template:Infobox university. You can use only the parameters defined there, which include "provost" and "vice president", but not "executive vice president". To get a template like this changed, that is used in hundreds of articles, you would have to post in Template Talk:Infobox university and achieve consensus that your propsed change is desirable. By the way, in my opinion, adding further unreferenced information to an article makes it worse, not better. Far more valuable would be to find some reliable independent sources for some of the information already in the article, and add them. --ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Can I add, maybe use {{unbulleted list}} with something like:

{{unbulleted list|GIVEN SURNAME <small>Vice President</small>|GIVEN2 SURNAME2 <small>Executive Vice President</small>}} in that field? Jerod Lycett (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Jerodlycett, I would advise against that. Please remember that an infobox is intended to summarize key facts about a topic, not to cover the whole topic. Overly long infoboxes are not helpful, in my view. If something is not among the designed parameters, it is usually better to just include it in the article prose than to work around the infobox definition. Also, consider how significant the name of any given official is to the article about the organization. Usually only really vital people should be listed by name. Those are just my opinions, of course. @MR1882: DES ^(talk) 19:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)