Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 406

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 400 ← Archive 404 Archive 405 Archive 406 Archive 407 Archive 408 → Archive 410

DVD cover image usage

I have noticed that a large number of film articles make use of non-free images such as posters and DVD covers without proper licensing or issues. I attempted to do the same for an article, however the item was quickly deleted despite my use rationale and attempts to justify the picture's use. I understand that for copyright reasons these images are precariously used, but I would like to know just how so many articles are able to use such images without permission and whether I am simply putting in the wrong details when it comes to writing about the license and use?

Wacky-Sansaizue (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-free images cannot be uploaded to Commons where you uploaded that file. They must be uploaded here on the English Wikipedia and they must comply with all the criteria listed at WP:NFCC. The easiest way is to use the {{Non-free use rationale}} template. --ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
ukexpat Brilliant. Thanks very much for the info. I knew I'd seen that template before. Wacky-Sansaizue (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem.--ukexpat (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Userboxes

I need some help organizing my userboxes. I want to put them under different headings and have them neat, but don't know how to do that. YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

They look pretty well organized already to me. You do have some headings there, but I guess you don't think they're enough? One thing some users do alternately is just create a whole subpage for their userboxes, and put section headers titled beliefs, likes, dislikes, etc over them, thereby sorting them by topic. Other people (me) just throw them all together on their userpage under one heading. I guess the best thing to do is just group them however you want, since they're yours. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 19:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
Hello, YoSoyUnHamster. This is a friendly reminder to you that this is a project to build an encyclopedia, not to create individual user pages adorned with lots of user boxes. User pages are to facilitate collaboration with other editors to improve the encyclopedia. Right now, you have over three times as many edits to your own user pages as you do to encyclopedia articles. Please reconsider that approach. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

reference.

On internet many entries related to saint bhole baba are available.Can they be use for the reference required by the wikipedia? BHOLE BABA GURU JI (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, BHOLE BABA GURU JI, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia requires that articles be supported by reliable sources. This means sources that have a degree of editorial supervision and a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, in general. Many internet sources do not fit this description, although others do. Also, to establish the notability of a subject, independent sources are needed, not including press releases or statements by the subject or associates of the subject. It all depends on the particular source and the statements that source is being cited to support. Questions about specific uses of specific sources can be asked at the reliable sources notice board or here, but the RSN is watched by editors particularly experienced in such matters. DES (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Minimum threshold for autopatrolled

I was of the impression the minimum threshold guideline for receiving the permission was 50, but it says on the Autopatrolled page this is 25, a change not suggested by any discussion on the talk page. Which is it? Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Rubbish computer: Check out this discussion on the talk page, which points to this discussion at the Village Pump. The latter is where support was expressed to reduce the number of articles from 50 to 25. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@SuperHamster: Okay, thanks. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians, 5 minutes of your attention, please.

I would like to offer to my fellow Wikipedians to have a look at the sketch of the following idea: AN ANNUAL COMPETITION IN PHOTOGRAPHY AMONG WIKIPEDIANS ONLY, and to consider a possibility to turn this sketch into a working project by ideas, suggestions and constructive criticism, or to offer a better plan to solve the “problem”.

The thing is, that many articles (as I have noticed) on various subjects of science can be illustrated in much more interesting, expressive way, in better quality and, what is even more important, in stronger connection to the essence of the subject; that’s why I propose to hold a competition in photography for (as a first step) the science articles.

It is necessary to stress here, that the appearance of the new photos in the articles is getting less attention of the Editors, than the appearance of the new articles, that is why good texts are bit by bit being filled with obscure and sometimes confounding photos, which often does not correspond to the current level of photography and doesn't reflect the latest scientific concepts and achievements.

The proposed competition could attract a focused attention to the articles of all participants, what will help to improve the quality of edited photos, and the winners will become a Wiki’s known and recognized experts, as each winning photo should be marked by the symbol of the win —Wiki-medal; thus, the winners will be able to give valuable advice to those, who need it, and to help the beginners to join future competitions, being better prepared.

Each day really gigantic number of people are approaching each Wiki page, and especially articles about science, such as palaeontology, astronomy, geology, etc...

For many of the readers these articles are the only immediately available source of information they have, and illustrations are incredibly important, as they act here as the “windows” to the World of Science, and this wonderful world should be presented correctly and interestingly.

I believe, that many Wikipedians can offer high quality photos of their own work for each of selected by Editors topics (articles). Those who are not interested in photography, could participate as the creators of designs for Wiki-medals, or to vote for the best 3 photos on each topic.

As the purpose of the competition, in the first place, is to improve a quality of the illustration of the articles, it will be appropriate to have competition without 1-2-3 places, but with selection of 3 best photos for each article, and prize the winners, for example, in category Chemistry, by 3 Wiki-medals of the same, ‘chemistry’ design, but in category Astronomy — by 3 Wiki-medals of the different design, created specially for the article Astronomy, and so on.

Every next year Editors could offer, let's say 4 (probable, it will be the optimal number) new different subjects for competition and 4 designs of Wiki-medal. Designs should reflect the assents of the subjects by its symbols. All designs, being different, should be contained in the chosen shape, which remains constant. On my page I presented an example of 4 designs of Wiki-medals for the best illustration of the following articles: Chemistry, Geology, Mineralogy, Gemmology.

It doesn't mean at all, that I wish to suggest to narrow down the Photography Competition to some single category, as for example, the illustration of science articles, or wider—to narrow down competitions to Photography only.


There’s an endless variety of the possible types of brilliant competitions and only the will and creative ideas of Wikipedians are needed for their development. I’m offering to take Photography Competition under consideration just as a first step, and if it will be found by Wikipedians, as the positive step, then the advice, recommendations and suggestions of the experienced and willing to help Wikipedians will be absolutely essential and invaluable, as there are a lot of questions here, for example: how to organize the competition technically? Whether it is possible to create a special contest page? In what form shall Editors vote for the best photos? And many more.

But the first question - what Wikipedians think about this proposal?


Thank you.

Regards, Chris Oxford. Chris Oxford (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

How would this differ from Picture of the Year, and how do you propose to address the issue of people thinking the winning photos have some kind of special status and shouldn't be removed from articles, which has been an ongoing problem for as long as I can remember regarding WP:Featured pictures? There isn't much correlation between aesthetic attractiveness and encyclopedic value. This isn't to say I'm automatically opposed to such a process, just that there would need to be very good arguments in favour of adding yet another layer of bureaucracy. ‑ iridescent 15:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Chris Oxford and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you are relatively new to the community you may not know that most of the pictures used in the Wikipedia are stored at another Wikimedia project called the Commons. This is where the pictures, videos and audio recording are kept, currently 28,780,973 of them. On this sister project there are many competitions that are similar to the one you are outlining in your post, such as "Wiki Loves Monuments" and "Wiki Loves Earth". In fact, there is one that is almost exactly what you propose. It is held on a monthly basis, you can read all about it here. This month's challenge is "100 years later". Previous themes have been things like "Personal Protective Equipment", "Fountains and wells", "Fossils", "Steps, Stairs and Staircases", "Household items in use", etc. With so many active photographers the subject needs to be more narrow than just "Chemistry" or "Geology", since the number of entries for such large categories would be impossible to handle. I'm sorry, but I don't see the reason for having two similar competitions. Best, w.carter-Talk 18:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I also see that you have uploaded some pictures here at the Wikipedia. It would be better if you uploaded them directly at the Commons. Start on this page. If you look at the pages where your pictures are, you can see that they are all tagged with a notice that they should be moved to Commons. w.carter-Talk 18:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the point of compressing...

...if Wikipedia saves all versions of images? For example, I've seen images being compressed losslessly, but the original copy is still kept. Say an 1MB image being losslessly compressed to a 900KB image, but both copies are kept, thus the actual disk space used would be 1MB+900KB. Just Curious. Frank (User Page) (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh wait another question, can I create templates in the /wiki directory? Say /wiki/Template:Foo, so people can use my template by using {{foo}}. Frank (User Page) (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure but it may help the page load faster. I think, it wouldn't make much difference. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 07:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you can create templates. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 07:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Imfrankliu - I suggest you don't think about "in the wiki directory", or about URLs at all. A page in Wikipedia has its name (which might include a workspace, such as Template: or Draft:) and you link to it by putting it in double square brackets. So [[Template:Tl]] appears as Template:Tl, a link to the template called 'Tl'; and [[London]] appears as London, a link to the article (or mainspace page) called 'London'. --ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The point of compression, particularly for a site with millions of users, is to save bandwith. Disk space is barely relevant. Maproom (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@ColinFine: What I'm thinking is creating the page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Something, and add a userbox or something. So I can use that userbox quickly by adding {{Something}}. Can I do that? Frank (User Page) (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
So not [[Something]], but {{Something}}. Frank (User Page) (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh I can! Didn't read the previous reply carefully. Frank (User Page) (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

what is a sandbox?

I cant help but notice what is the sandbox tab?ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, ArabAmazigh12. Your sandbox is a place for you to experiment with wikicode, to keep notes, to draft sections to add to articles, or for any other purpose that helps build the encyclopedia. Although your sandbox will usually be left alone by other editors, you do not have 100% control. It can't be used to host copyright violations or personal attacks on people, for example. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The guidelines regarding use of your sandbox and other user pages can be found at the shortcut WP:USERPAGE. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi ArabAmazigh12. You can usually find / create your sandbox in Special:MyPage/sandbox. Please do visit the guidelines. Frank (User Page) (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Creating Wikiproject

How can i create a new Wikiproject? Is there any pre-installed template and format which will help creating Wikiproject. Can a single user create them or its a joint effort by a group of users? The Avengers (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, The Avengers, and welcome to the Teahouse. Prior to making a new WikiProject it's helpful to search the WikiProject Directory in case the WP you're considering might already exist. Or that the topic might fit under an existing encyclopedia subject area. Secondly, a good resource is at Wikipedia:WikiProject#Creating and maintaining a project. While I myself have not created a new WP perhaps another more experienced editor can chime in with additional advice. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
It's probably useful to establish that at least a few people are interested in helping. Many WikiProjects are just a collection of pages with no active work or even members. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC).
I would start by following the advice at Creating a Wikiproject, especially checking for existing proposals and identifying the scope. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

How to place link in template

I am editing an infobox template.

It has data# = { { { country| } } }

How can I link that so that if someone writes

| country = India

while using the template, it automatically links to India? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Pankaj Jain I see you have been working on Template:Infobox project. Note that while this infobox is not as widely used as some infoboxes are, it is not a good idea to make changes on the live copy as you test things out. Ther3e are currently 73 live articles that use this infobox, plus perhaps 20 sandboxes, drafts and other pages. Any change you make will affect all of those pages. Before making any changes you should propose them on Template talk:Infobox project and perhaps put some messages on the talk pages of articles that use the infobox to see if there is consensus that your changes are desirable. For one thing, It is not always the case that the name of the country is also the title of an article, and if there is already a link to the country in the text of the article, a user might not want another in the infobox.
Testing of changes to a template like this should usually be done in a template sandbox, such as Template:Infobox project/Sandbox. This should start as a copy of the template, and then changes can be made here for testing. It is also common to create a testcase page, such as Template:Infobox project/Testcases. Here several different calls with different parameters can be made, using both the live and the sandbox version, to see the differences between the two. Introducing too many parameters to an infobox is often a mistake -- I think that many infoboxes have gone overboard in this regard.
You will also need to handle the case when a parameter you are linking to is empty or not supplied.
I hope this is helpful. DES (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
This doesn't answer my query, regarding how to link, in any aspect. I haven't edited any of the existing parameters and hence have taken full care for articles using the template. I have only edited the new parameters introduced, since the existing ones did not serve the purpose. The country was mere example, I have been working on a few infoboxes including some existing ones, and need to know the syntax for link as is there in infobox former country. So if you can share the syntax, that would be of real help. Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Capankajsmilyo Do remember that any change to a template forces the rebuilding of every page that uses it, even if the rendered result is unchanged because the altered parameters were not used. It is really best to set up a template sandbox, test all your changes there, and then (if and only if there is consensus for the change) make a single edit to the actual template. Multiple rebuilding of multiple pages is not a good idea, although it is not as bad in this case as it would be if thousands or tens of thousands of pages were using the template.
I didn't give a specific answer because I wasn't sure, not having tested such a case. It looks to me as if data# = [[{ { { country| } } }]] ought to work, but I'm not sure how an empty value is handled here. If you want to handle cases whre the displayed name of a country is not the same as the article title to link to, you might need to introduce a country_link= parameter and have the template output [[{{{country_link}}}|{{{country}}}]] IF country_link is non-empty. (that would be done with an #IF parser function).
Still I urge you to do your testing in a sandbox version of the template. DES (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, displayed name of country is same as link title. However, [[{{{country|}}}]] doesn't work in empty fields. It returns [[]]. Is there any other alternative? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 21:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Capankajsmilyo, the display name and the link target might not always be the same. For example, one might want to display "UK" but link to United Kingdom. Remember you are not building an infobox just for indian projects.
As this is making a call to {{infobox}} I wasn't sure if it had already built-in mechanisms to handle generating no output for an empty parameter. If not then a parser function call will be needed, something like:
data# = {{#if:{{{country|}}}|[[{{{country}}}]]|{{{country}}} }}
You would need to test that, of course. See Help:Magic words#Conditional. I hope this is helpful. DES (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
data# = {{#if:{{{country|}}}|[[{{{country}}}]]}}
will do the job slightly better. If the country parameter isn't defined, you don't even want to display it unlinked. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC).

New article is rejected, but comparable article is allowed

I have been slowly putting together an article that I believe to be notably sourced, including published articles written by others in the publishing industry. However when I requested approval it was rejected. But a comparable article about another company, with citations that are clearly PR was allowed. I've never been able to get a clear answer on why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tipalti vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payoneer

Zoodc (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Well if I had my way the other article would be deleted too. Would that make you feel better? if you want to gain perhaps 7% more credibility, put something, anything, on your user page and your user name will become a blue link rather than a red one, suggesting that perhaps you came to wikipedia to do something other than just launch your article. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As you can see, another editor agrees that maybe the other article should be deleted. See the deletion policy for how that can be requested. However, in reading over your contribution history, I see that you have a conflict of interest because you are employed by Tipalti. It is possible that the other reviewer noticed that, but gave a different reason for the decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I guess we now know that 5 hours is "never". That's how long the editor waited between the time he posted a question on my talk page, and now has answered here. The current article is quite promotional, which is the rationale I gave when I declined it. I haven't looked at the other article, simply because it is irrelevant. This article is promotional. I actually hadn't realized their was a COI until I just read his post on my talk page. Onel5969 TT me 01:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Zoodc. The first thing you should do is read, study and comply with the Paid-contribution disclosure, which imposes legally mandatory requirements on you as a paid editor. Do not ignore this. Once you have complied with those binding requirements, consider this: English Wikipedia has nearly five million articles, and millions of those should be either improved or deleted. You seem to be saying, "There is a mediocre, promotional article about one of our competitors. Therefore, we deserve to have a mediocre, promotional article about our company". My answer to that proposition is "no way under the sun". That's bad logic. Prove that your company is notable by bringing forth rock solid coverage in reliable, independent sources, and then step aside. Uninvolved editors will evaluate your best efforts. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Are deleted pages archived...

...or are they just gone? (the contents)Frank (User Page) (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Only admins can see them. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 20:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
There are also various places that you can see them; Archive.org archives everything so as long as they were up long enough. There's speedydeletion.wikia.com which is dedicated to keeping copies of things that were deleted. And other sites such as wikipedia mirrors may have old snapshots or just keep around deleted articles.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, if you have a legitimate reason for wanting access to a deleted article, Frank, such as if it was deleted for having insufficient sources but you've found new reliable ones and don't want to have to start completely from scratch creating a new article on the same topic, and the reason for deleting the page did not include copyright violations, someone listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles will often be willing to put a copy of such a deleted article on a userspace subpage so that its useful content can be retained. That page also links to information on reversing the deletion of an article or other page. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 02:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, the upload a picture is blocked by "ContentKeeper" on my chromebook, any way around that?

I wanted to upload a picture of myself but it was blocked by ContentKeeper. Any way around that?

Starbomb is awesome (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Starbomb is awesome: Welcome to the Teahouse!
Wikipedia doesnt have anything to do with the nannyware installed on your computer. The reference desk might be able to point you to some sites that have hacks that let you violate its controls. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Starbomb is awesome, and welcome to the Teahouse. ContentKeeper seems to be a third-party program, probably installed by the educational institution that provided your Chromebook. See here for more information, since Wikipedia does not yet have a ContentKeeper article. On another note, is there some educational use that a photo of you would contribute to Wikipedia? Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia; it is not like social media sites where you create a profile page. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 20:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Editors like me who disclose their real names often also post photos of themselves on their user pages (or Teahouse host profiles). I am 63 and self employed, and have relatively little to lose. Younger editors, and those who value their anonymity, should think very carefully before posting photos of themselves here. The internet can get ugly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
That's true, Cullen328, but "editors like you" also have years of contributions towards Wikipedia and have established that you are here to edit the encyclopedia. A photo on the user page of a newer editor with comparatively few contributions to their name is less likely to be appropriate, just as it's inappropriate for users to spend more time editing their user pages than editing articles. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 00:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You are correct, GrammarFascist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) GrammarFascist I disagree with the thinking behind your contention above. There are (or should be) no second class editors here. if it is acceptable that I have my picture on my user page (and I do, and did have years ago, before I was nearly as experienced as i am now -- in fact I posted it when i had been editing for less than 6 months), then it is acceptable for a brand new editor to have his or her picture there, if such an editor duly chooses to have it after being warned of the implications. If a user does nothing but work on a user page there may be a case of WP:NOTHERE, but a new but productive editor should not be pressured to refrain from things more experienced editors do. DES (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't think I was proposing a strict delineation of first-class and second-class editors, DES, my apologies that I didn't make myself more clear. When I said content such as a photo on a user page "is less likely to be appropriate", all I meant was that it was less likely — not that it was categorically inappropriate. And it is customary to advise visitors to this page against treating their Wikipedia user page like a social media profile; that's all I meant to do. Again, sorry that my intended meaning did not come across. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 02:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
My opinion is that all of the experienced editors commenting here have made valid points, that there are no easy answers, and that improving the encyclopedia must be the main motivation for any productive editor. Thanks to all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist, Cullen328, DESiegel, and Starbomb is awesome: While caution should always be exercised on the Internet, the Template:Infobox Wikipedia user, currently used by over 4400 editors, contains options for photo and many other personal data. The template has been in use for nine years, so I assume that the parameters have been vetted and deemed appropriate and within the guidelines of the WP. I have seen this template on many new editor pages since it is easy to use and resembles what people are used to in social media. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

How to improve a page so it is not a candidate for speedy deletion

Hello,

I am new here, and am trying to create an article for a World sporting event. However, it was flagged for speedy deletion. I don't know why, the info was all factual, it wasn't "sales-y" and certainly not spammy or inaccurate. It was an event that reached 700,000 people on Facebook and continues to be very popular, so it's not like it's a "made up entity". Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Figure_Championship

Any advice on how to fix it up (and how to get rid of this tag) so it is not a candidate for speedy deletion would be great! :) I read the info but don't quite understand. Lakeplacidskater (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Lakeplacidskater: If I were you, I would move the draft to the main page.
Your page meets the R2 criteria for speedy deletion: "Redirects, apart from shortcuts, from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces."
I am a new editor, too, so I hope my advice can be helpful. If not, please don't be mad! *sniff *sniff


  Although newbies may be delicious served with some Fava beans and a nice Chianti, taking a nibble is actively discouraged.

Frank (User Page) (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lakeplacidskater. On a personal note, I visited Lake Placid in 2003 and have fond memories of the Adirondacks. That being said, your article is completely lacking in references to reliable, independent sources, devoting significant coverage to the topic. Your only source is to the website of the event itself. That is not enough to keep the article. By the way, we don't care about how many people "like" anything on Facebook. Not a bit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Another factor to consider is that there is already a fairly comprehensive article at World Figure Skating Championships. Does your new article add anything new that is not in the existing article? If so, we should consider whether the best approach is to merge the additional information into the existing article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I see that World Figure Championship is now in mainspace, as a redirect to a draft. That can't be right. If I were at home with a real computer instead of on holiday with a flaky laptop, I would try to fix it. Maproom (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I've deleted the mainspace redirect and cleaned up the draft and added one independent source. There's local coverage to be mined from the Lake Placid News (though not much else I found). But there's quite a few of them. There's the one I found as well as this, this, this. this, this, this, this, this and this. Lakeplacidskater: using sources like these for expansion information (not for their copyrighted sentences) and citing to them is a good way to go to make an acceptable article. You might emulate the citation form I placed when I cited to one article from this source for others. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia support javascript...

...or html5? I think there is a way to use javascript, but I'm not sure. does <script></script> tag work? Also, does it support HTML5? I have never seen any animated pages except for those which used GIFs. Frank (User Page) (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Frank, I think you would get a quicker and more accurate answer if you asked at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) instead. That is where all the tech-savvy editors hang out. :) w.carter-Talk 10:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@Imfrankliu:: <script></script> does not work. A wikitext page cannot load JavaScript but there are special JavaScript pages ending in .js and not associated with specific wikitext pages. Some js pages like MediaWiki:Common.js are made by administrators and run for all users with JavaScript-enabled browsers. Some js pages run for users who have them enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Some only run for a user who made them for their own account, or others who choose to load them from the account of another user. See Wikipedia:Customisation and Wikipedia:User scripts. Wikitext only allows a limited subset of HTML. See Help:HTML in wikitext and Wikipedia:HTML5. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

about adding an article

Hello guys, I am trying to create an article about an Ethiopian personality, who I admire so much. But I don't have any permission from that person. I don't think it is harmful to his career, infact, it can promote him world wide. So is there any way that I can post an article on his biography on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawit Tesfa (talk • contribs) 14:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dawit Tesfa, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best way to start a new article is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Your first article and to make use of the article wizard. You don't need someone's permission to write an article about them, but also note that neither should you be using a Wikipedia article to promote an individual. Articles need to be written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, and should include a balanced treatment of the subject - including, where relevant, criticism. You also need to consider whether the person meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which require substantial coverage of a subject in reliable third-party sources before a Wikipedia article can be written. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
It actually seems that you have already started the article, at User:Dawit Tesfa/sandbox. You need to address the concerns expressed there, which led to the draft article being declined. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Cordless Larry gave you some good advice. To add, a test I often recommend to help determine a subject's notability is the amnesia test:
  1. Forget everything you know about the subject you want to write about—act as if you know nothing.
  2. Go online (or your library or wherever) and do research on the subject, focusing more closely on third-party news sources and less on sources affiliated with the subject; be sure to check the reliability of the sources
  3. From your research, and your research only, write an article
  4. If you find that there are few or no sources to use, the subject may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
If you need any help, feel free to ask at this Teahouse again! Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Archive

How can I set up an archive for my talk page - FOX 52 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a very thorough tutorial at Help:Archiving a talk page. —2macia22 (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Am not sure if the person am writing about is notable or not.

Need your help regarding article on an important personality.Rakeshpathai (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

no one still respondingRakeshpathai (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Rakeshpathai. You only have two edits logged under this account, the two above. Were you working on something that got deleted? Or were you using another account? Who is the person and what is the evidence that they are an "important personality"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
It would help if you would include the name of the person? or a link? Jaldous1 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Also please realize that like you, everyone here is a volunteer, with real life demands on their time. Attitude like demanding an answer in 7 minutes will get you nowhere in this volunteer collaborative project. John from Idegon (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
am new here, so wasn't sure how this works. I just tried to draft the article, am not sure whether it saved or not.

Its titled Doctor Bhagwan Das PathaiRakeshpathai (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rakeshpathai. That would be Draft:Doctor Bhagwan Das Pathai. Please remember to write in full sentences in a Wikipedia article. "He was married on 28 September 1982." not "Married: 28 September 1982" for example. This draft mis a start, but it needs to explain why this person is significant. Not every doctor will have a Wikipedia article. As part of that, and particularity important, you need to cite reliable sources, especially sources that are independent of the subject. This means not blogs or personal websites, not the site of his employers or partners, not press releases, but newspapers, reputable magazines, or other sources with editorial control and a good reputation for accuracy. This should include multiple sources that each discuss the subject in some detail, say several paragraphs at a minimum. See Wikipedia's Golden Rule, Your First Article, Notability of biographies, and Referencing for Beginners. When you think the draft is ready for formal review, place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. I hope this helps. DES (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Note to all: I sent Rakeshpathi a talk message explaining that the Teahouse, and Wikipedia, is edited entirely by volunteers on volunteered time. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 18:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Ready to go live?

Hi, I have put together a well-sourced article about a notable person: the first East Asian elected to a national legislature in the Americas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robert_Victor_Evan_Wong

I'm not sure I've used the <ref> tags correctly, since they are not automatically turning into footnotes, except in one case, and there's a message saying I haven't closed one of the pairs, but I can't find where the problem is.

I have more than 10 edits on other pages. I'm not sure what the next step is. Can you help/advise? I don't know if I should Move this now to article status, wait for another editor to do so, or tear this up and repost throughout the "first article" template, which I tried but also found hard to use.

Sorry to be so clueless about the technical details, but I feel the substance of my article is notable, independently-sourced, neutral, etc. I'm just having trouble with the mechanics necessary to get this into the review process.

comment added by Sprucegrouse (talk • contribs) 13:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sprucegrouse. I've copyedited the draft. This is how a citation is made:
<ref>details of source</ref>
→ That is, there's an opening ref tag (<ref>) and a closing ref tag (</ref>; note the forward slash).
Do not use <nowiki> around the ref tags. That's for telling the code not to treat wiki markup as code, as in your use above to show the ref tag, rather than having it manifest its function. Another issue was that in order for these tags to properly display, you needed a references section, with code there to tell the software "this is where to display the references". I've added that using the template {{reflist}}. You were also attempting to place various things you see in other articles by a "homemade" method. For example a table of contents is automatically generated (when an article has four or more sections) – that is, you don't make one, the software does. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Fuhghettaboutit!

What next? May I move it to another area for review?

Sprucegrouse (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sprucegrouse. You now need to introduce proper wiki-links, as I did in this edit. Find a term which has a Wikipedia article, and which it might help the reader to know more about and make a link by adding double square brackets around the target term, like this: [[Target]]. Don't over-do this. If an article includes a phrase like "The door of the house was painted green." it is not helpful to link "door", as that would be of use to most readers. You can also find and add additional reliable sources if any are available, but the sources already present are probably sufficient. The formatting can be improved a bit, for example, titles of works should be in italics such as The Daily Argosy (not just The Daily Argosy). When you think it is ready for formal review, place {{subst:submit}} (without the nowiki and code tags) at the top of the page. There is no need to move the draft, if it is approved the reviewer will do that for you. DES (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Fuhghettaboutit. I appreciate all your help. I took the tutorial for beginners, which was also very helpful, so I should be a little better at the basics now. My article is now in line for review, about 500 articles back in the queue.Sprucegrouse (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

move proposal

Am I allowed to make a move proposal as an I.P. without an account? 92.19.28.191 (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Although it is always best to make your account and get registered, as far as my Wikipedia understanding of policies is concerned anyone can propose that but you must have a good reason for that. Any autoconfirmed experienced editor may then move it on your behalf. Hope that helps. JugniSQ (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
So you may request page move. JugniSQ (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

References cleanup - where is the Reflinks tool now?

What happened to the Reflinks tool for references cleanup? Is there something else available now to do these tasks? --Djembayz (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Djembayz. It has turned into reFill, available under Tools at the left hand side of pages. It has some limitations (Internet Explorer doesn't cooperate and put's # in instead) and some editors will revert it because of the way it formats some things. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Will give it a try and see if it gets reverted. --Djembayz (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@Djembayz and StarryGrandma: Reflinks is available at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py I believe that reFill is a similar tool from a different person. I had to set an item in my preferences to get reflinks to appear on the left side tool list, it is there now. Reflinks also has some limitations -- it tends to stuff things into title that should be separate, but it is usually an improvement over a bare url cite. DES (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Djembayz and DESiegel: Thanks DES! I tried it on my Samples page and it does a much better job. First it leaves one in the editor after making changes making it easy to fix up, and shows the diff so you can see just what happened. It uses "publisher=" for the publisher instead of "work=". I couldn't find anything to set in preferences but copied this from your common.js to mine:
// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left
$(function () {
 mw.util.addPortletLink(
  "p-tb",     // toolbox portlet
  "http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + mw.config.get('wgPageName')
   + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=20&lang=" + mw.config.get('wgContentLanguage'),
  "Reflinks"  // link label
)});
StarryGrandma (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Snow Bowl (2008)

The originating unregistered editor requested, at the Help Desk, a review of Draft:Snow Bowl (2008). I neither declined nor accepted, but used the Comment feature to ask questions that, in my view, involved notability. The unregistered editor has now asked me to explain in the article draft and on their talk page at more length. Since this forum is the usual place for discussing declined drafts, I am asking for the opinion of other reviewers and experienced editors here. It isn't clear from the draft why the game is notable as a Snow Bowl, because there is nothing unusual about playing American football in light snow under slightly-below-freezing conditions. Maybe I should have done a lot more research into when there should be articles about individual post-season games before the Super Bowl. In any case, I am asking for comments by other editors here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

disambiguation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanny I believe this should be a disambiguation page, but i can't change the title CokeAndVodka (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @CokeAndVodka: welcome to the Teahouse!
The page in question is in fact a disambiguation page. It just does not have a disambiguation (in parens) after its name - because there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which would be appropriate to place in the un-disambiguated use of the name.
For your overall question, articles are not "renamed" - they need to be moved to a different name. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi CokeAndVodka. That is a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are only given the parenthetical addition "(disambiguation) if the base title – the title without any embellishment – has a primary topic. So for example, if a particular title has four topics people might be searching for, about equally, then when they type that topic into the search and land on the page listing all four (a disambiguation page at the base title), they can reach their goal upon a second action of clicking on the one of the four they were seeking.

However, if 92% [for example] of all people who type a term or phrase into the search engine are looking for only one of four topics by the same title, it would inconvenience many more people to have to "click twice" if the base term led to a disambiguation page. So the article on that much-more-likely-to-be-searched-for topic (the "primary topic") is at the base name, the disambiguation page is given a title with "(disambiguation)" added (and a hatnote is added at the top of the primary topic base page directing the other 8% to the disambiguation page). Make sense? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Decline of Draft:Bukarester FC

I declined Draft:Bukarester FC at Articles for Creation, and have been asked by User:Alexiulian25 on my talk page why I declined it. As I explained in my decline, I didn't see adequate evidence of notability, including that it wasn't clear that the team met the fully professional standards of WP:NFOOTY. (I realize that those rules are primarily meant for players, but I was using them for a team also.) The submitter says that the team is notable, but there isn't a whole lot of information on it because it only existed a few years before it folded during World War One. I realize that means that there is a shortage of reliably sourced independent coverage. I also noted that the article would require heavy copy-editing for grammar. What is the opinion of other reviewers and experienced editors? Was I justified in asking the author to include more information, such as at least a clear statement that the team was in Liga, and was I justified in expecting the submitter to request the heavy copy-editing before submission? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

  • valid decline I agree with TRPoD. Nowhere near notable enough. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

About references

WikiPedia asks for references. In the article there are at least 3 external hyperlinks that appoints to the existnce of this person. Why are these hyperlinks denied by saying there are none ?? 81.205.214.61 (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

These two edits to this question are the only posts that have been made from your IP address. If a draft was declined, I would suggest that you, first, provide a link to the draft, and, second, register an account to facilitate discussion and a contribution history. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia requires not merely links that "demonstrate" the existence, but reliably published sources with a reputation for accuracy, subject matter expertise and editorial oversight that are not related to the subject and have found the subject worthy of discussing in a significant manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
To be a "reference", those reliable sources spoken of are not just listed in a vacuum. It is not a "reference" unless it's ... well ... being used as a reference. A "link" could be to an extremely reliable source, as described above, but it would still not be a "reference" as we mean it, simply by virtue of its listing in some ambiguous manner alongside the content. Rather, a reference is a special kind of listing where we are telling readers, in effect, "this source we are listing corroborates (verifies) the information in this article". Ideally, pointers to references are done through the use of inline citations, so you can tell exactly where the information in some specific portion of text can be corroborated. When a link is places in an "external links" section, "further reading" section, or otherwise does not explicitly indicate it is "a reference", it would be folly to treat them as references and so we don't. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Advice on article rejected for notability?

Hello, I've been working hard on getting the article Draft:Wei_Dai published:

  • Worked on the article for a while before submitting for review.
  • After the initial rejection, I made dozens of improvements.
  • I asked the reviewer for suggestions, but never got a response.
  • Did my best to read through WP:REFBEGIN and WP:PEOPLE and find reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
  • I asked for more info on the "Articles for creation help desk". No reply.
  • I contacted other editors who are working on related articles, but did not receive any constructive advice.
  • After many more edits, moving my user space version to Draft: namespace and merging content from existing draft, I submitted the article again. It was rejected.

Part of the problem here is that it is difficult to establish notability for a cypherpunk who deliberately avoided media attention, interviews, etc.

Considering the influence his projects have had, plus the many sources which do mention him (although briefly), I am confused what more is needed?

Reliable sources that are independent of the subject:

  • New York Times.
  • Wall Street Journal.
  • The Sunday Times.
  • The Register.
  • Business Insider.
  • The Washington Post.
  • Engadget.
  • IEEE Spectrum.
  • University of Maryland, Department of Mathematics.
  • Journal of Peer Production
  • Unenumerated - Blog of world-famous cryptographer Nick Szabo
  • International Association for Cryptologic Research.

I'm close to giving up... am I wasting my time with this? -- JonathanCross (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, JonathanCross. I'm afraid you may be. I haven't looked at your references, but just on the basis of what you've written here, somebody who has "deliberately avoided media attention" may well not be notable. You say "the many sources which do mention him (albeit briefly)" (emphasis mine). Brief mentions are not generally enough to establish notability. I am become increasingly clear that "notability" is a very unfortunate word for the Wikipedia concept, because people repeatedly assume (reasonably) that it means famous, influential, significant, popular or some thing like that. It doesn't mean any of these. The way I think of it is that it means "there is enough independent, reliably published, material about the subject to make it possible to write an article on the subject". If Wei Dai is often mentioned in articles on something else, he may well appear in a Wikipedia article about that something else; but do those mentions, even taken together, allow one to put anything significant into the article. As I say, I haven't looked at your references - this is just in response to what you've said above. I hope this helps. --ColinFine (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response ColinFine.

"there is enough independent, reliably published, material about the subject to make it possible to write an article on the subject"

(Emphasis on the word "enough" added by me)
There is a lot of sourced information there, so it doesn't seem to be a quantity issue from what I can tell, but more that subject does not have mainstream articles about him as a person. Do their accomplishments not count towards notability?

do those mentions, even taken together, allow one to put anything significant into the article

Would you mind taking a look at the draft? (I of course feel there is an abundance of "significant" information in the article. :-)
If it is true that Wikipedia will not allow this article to be published (shame), then I'd like to somehow alert others not to waste their time the way I did. Can I add a note on Talk:Wei_Dai pointing to the draft? -- JonathanCross (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Hey Jonathan. No, I think an article is possible here – and you're close. Some possible additional sources for you to mine from (I haven't looked in depth at these, just giving you some options): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. For the book sources you might use the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books to easily get the citation to place (though I always tweak its output, usually adding location information; changing the name format to last, first; changing the exact publication date to just the year; and most importantly, the page parameter always needs fixing: either add an end page for the range, or remove the en-dash – then hit make citation and copy the code). This is more of a general note, but to the extent relevant remove any extra citations to less reliable sources where they are just added to give a veneer of more sources. That detracts from articles, makes them more difficult to review and is actually a red flag for reviewers that often correlates to non-notability by overcompensation for lack of reliable, in-depth sourcing existing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, I'll check out those references (seems they are considered more reputable) and remove some of the less notable ones as you suggest. Cheers, -- JonathanCross (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Wei Dai is certainly notable enough for an article. Jaldous1 (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
He seems notable to me too. He's relevant for several things, which means a separate article may be preferable over mentioning him in another article (on a topic he is relevant to). Avoiding media in itself doesn't mean he can't be notable; there seems a lot of coverage anyway, and he doesn't necessarily need to be the main topic of reports, as long as his role in the main topic of those reports is significant. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability per WP:BASIC. Gap9551 (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

how to tag word,people,place or else~~

how can i tag work, place, names, animals on my article?Faizan mumeed (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Faizan mumeed: and welcome to the Teahouse!
First, as an important frame of reference, it is not "your" article - it is a Wikipedia encyclopedia article that anyone can edit.
But to your actual question, I am not sure what you mean by "tag" but you can "link" to another Wikipedia article in the body of an article by placing the article title in double brackets like this [[ARTICLE NAME]]. But do not link every word, only the important ones. We also have a system of WP:CATEGORY that use double braces brackets [[Category:American male journalists]] at the bottom of an article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_406&oldid=1077822250"