Open main menu

Wikipedia β

WP teahouse logo.png

Most recent archives
738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745, 746, 747, 748, 749, 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, 755, 756, 757


Interesting factsEdit

I found some facts:

  1. Most FA-class and GA-class biographies are about deceased people or aged living people. There are very few FA-class and GA-class biographys about young people. Why?
  2. Only 10%-20% AFC submissions can be accepted. Why?

Omega68537 (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Welcome to the Teahouse, Omega68537. The answers to your questions are simple. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we rely on what the world's written about people. FA and GA class articles require, as a minimum, many such sources, and FA articles in particular a hundred or more citations. Except in the entertainment and sports fields, few young people have ever gained the attention of the world to the degree that (say) multiple critical biographies have been written about them, and I'd bet you that the overwhelming majority of FA/GA articles about living people younger than 40 are about singers, actors or athletes.

    As to your second question, you're not quite accurate. It's not that a low percentage of AfC drafts can be accepted. It's that not many are accepted. The vast majority of such articles are submitted by relative novices to Wikipedia, who find that creating new articles while unfamiliar with Wikipedia notability standards and formatting is a hard task, and often requires multiple attempts at it. Ravenswing 15:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

    • @Omega68537 and Ravenswing:, you two might be interested in reading Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Post-trial Research Report#Suggestions to the Wikimedia Foundation. Research found that only 1.2% of drafts are accepted. Not all of these are AfC submissions though, and there is extensive discussion about what the exact figure is here: Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Post-trial Research Report#It's great to see this report. But the headline number seems to be: 1.2% – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @Ravenswing: Thanks for your reply. Now I know that only highly notable people (Not just meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia)'s biographies can reach FA or GA class. That means the article Guan Xiaotong is likely to be a GA-class article, or at least, B-class article. Because Guan Xiaotong's popularity and notability are extremely high, and she has gained the attention of the world (I can find reliable sources even on Russian websites). In China, there are few people born after 1995 have higher popularity than Guan Xiaotong. So that it's possible to find many sources about her. But in fact, Guan Xiaotong is just a Start-class article. Right? Omega68537 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
        • @Omega68537: Actually, the quality scale has very little to do with the importance of the subject; it's an assessment of how comprehensive the article is. Some figures of monumental world importance have Start-class articles at best, while I know of two FA articles on ice hockey players for whom the term "insignificant journeyman" would be an accurate (if uncharitable) characterization of their careers. That Xiaotong's article is rated Start-class (I'd give it C-class, myself) is simply a matter of that no editors have put the time, passion and skill necessary into it to raise it to FA/GA. Ravenswing 16:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
          • @Ravenswing: Thanks for your reply. Your answer is good, but you may misunderstood my meaning. My meaning is, the article Guan Xiaotong is possible to reach GA-class when editors put enough time, passion and skill on it (because of the extremely high notability of the subject), while many biographies, such as Xu Geyang, are highly unlikely to reach GA-class because the subject is not very notable (as of now). The Baidu Encyclopedia's entry is a featured article of Baidu Encyclopedia which reachs Wikipedia's B-class article (or even GA-class article). Featured articles of Baidu Encyclopedia usually meets Wikipedia's B-class article, or higher. My question is, not all biographies are possible to reach FA/GA class, right?
          • Omega68537 (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hey Omega68537. You've got things a little backward. GA/FA is about the quality of the article, not about the length of the article, or the number of sources in it. The answer to how long a GA/FA should be in sheer length is "long enough that it provides comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of the topic" and the answer to how many sources an article should have is "enough to support all the content in the article".
Many GA/FAs tend to be long and have many sources, because that's how much content it takes to cover the subject comprehensibly, and that's how many sources it takes to support it. They're not GA/FAs because they're written on the "most notable" topics. Notability (as an oversimplification) is essentially just a test, or a thought experiment to see if it is possible in principle to write a well sourced neutral article, given a perfect Wikipedia editor with unlimited time and access. Whether that article has in fact been written in a way that is well sourced and neutral, on the level of our most well sourced and most neutral articles on the entire project, is an issue of whether the article qualifies for FA or GA. GMGtalk 14:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Omega68537, yes. All FA class articles are about highly notable subject matter (as measured by the quantity of published, reliable original material on the subject). However, not all notable subjects have FA class articles. This should be seen as an opportunity for editors to expand these articles. Ihearthonduras (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

oclcEdit

Hi there,

I'm a new editor, and I'm updating the page of Leandro Soto Ortiz, at his request. In 'Works or Publications', I want to enter a new item, but I see 'oclc', and every other entry has a different number, but I don't know what they mean. Can anyone help me with this? Lauraj210 (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Lauraj210 and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Did you not try clicking the hyperlinks to find out for yourself? Whilst I'm not familiar with this cataloguing system either, it soon becomes pretty clear this is the OCLC cataloguing system (WorldCat's Online Computer Library Center), and the hyperlinked number is the unique identifier for the work on that system (rather like an ISBN number we're all much more familiar with. The article has used a special template {{citation}} which allows you to enter those parameters. I presume you would look up the relevant work on the catalogue to retrieve its identifier. Once in the article, a user need only click the link to see the entry and which library holds copies. It would make sense to follow that system. But I don't think we want full lists of his publications -just a selection of the most significant ones. So please don't add more trivia.
As a new user, thank you for declaring on your user page that you have a conflict of interest with the subject. Are you being paid to do this promotional work? If so, you must also declare this, as per our policy which you must follow here: WP:PAID. The article is very poorly referenced and serves only to promote the artist based mostly on his own website. We do not need to have a directory of all his works, nor everyone involved. Nor do we need you to tell us to go to his website three or four times to find out more. Please remove those links - they do not conform with our Manual of Style. We need you to provide references independent of the subject which tell us what others have said about him. If you cannot do this, please delete the unsupported content, leaving just one 'External link' to his website or LinkedIn account, or whatever he uses. Wikipedia is only interested in people who others have talked about in depth. So, please, remove all the cruft (trivia), and go and get some better references - I think there are quite a lot out there - please try Google News or Google Books for starters. I am not confident that a library meta-data entry for a collection of papers is a good enough source on its own to support all the biographical information, though others might disagree with me. I would prefer to see this section additionally referenced from properly published sources. Work in major museums should be reference to those museums or news articles, not to the artist's own website. Then we can be confident he meets our notability criteria for artists. Sorry to sound a bit grumpy over this - but we need a good reliable encyclopaedia entry, not list upon list of what he's done from a website we could simply visit ourselves. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello Nick Moyes First of all, I'm not being paid; Leandro doesn't know how to edit a Wikipedia page, and I thought I'd give it a go just to help him out. I'm not contributing any of my opinions, and just fleshing out the page according to his resume. I read the COI, but I assume that's okay, as it would be an ordeal to ask another editor to do so many updates. Please advise.

I'm in the process of refining his page, and adding references. You can see that by going to the page -- I hope this suits Wikipedia better. I've taken out the references to Leandro's website, but mostly have been working on the introduction and the bio so far, the Publications, and I put links to most of the 'Selected Permanent Collections'.

All the other external links were put in by another editor -- should I remove them, as they are repititions of the University of Miami item which is referenced in Reference #1? (The only one that really ought to remain is "Creator page for Leandro Soto Ortiz in the Cuban Theater Digital Archive", which is not part of UofM.) Yes, I did look up the OCLC after writing a Teahouse request but before you answered, but nowhere did I find how to get the identifier. Since you're not familiar with the OCLC system, shall I write another Teahouse request on that particular issue, or can you figure it out? Cheers from the US Lauraj210 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Lauraj210. Sorry for the delay in replying. Thanks for clarifying your unpaid relationship to him. It struck me that you might be in the best position to take a photo of him and upload it for use on this article (we can only accept images where the copyright is owned by the person uploading it as they have to release it under a Creative Commons licence before we can utilise it. I don't think you need to worry about not having an OCLC number, especially if you've got an ISBN number. But if you do want it, I found it halfway down the entry on the OCLC website for one of those publications already listed in that section. I guess if you can't actually find the publication listed on their site, you'll never be able to generate that entry number for obvious reasons. Yes, it's fine to be bold and to remove duplicate references, though if the same reference supports different statements of fact in different places, it is highly desirable to keep them all there. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello User:Nick Moyes I'm now down to the appendices, and I'm lost in a miasma of links upon links upon links. I'm cross-eyed from reading!

I changed the title 'References' back to 'Notes and References'. Somehow along the way, I lost all but #1 in edit, but they are still there in the public. Wierd! Can you help me with that? (Can you go into the edit page?) I couldn't find reference to including one of the 'Publications' section items as a footnote. I tried, but I can't get into the edit section to add the editor... Do you have any suggestions as to the Manual of Style on this issue? You said to include "references independent of the subject which tell us what others have said about him". I've included a 'Further reading' section which, admittedly I think, has too many! I read that only 3% of the articles have that section... I'm not done, but would you check on the progress so far and make any suggestions/corrections? I'm going to have Leandro send an email to somebody who has taken a recent picture to see if he'll give permission to use it. Better than anything I could take... Lauraj210 (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

How do I add a picture to a Draft articleEdit

Can anyone give me some tips on the correct way to add a picture to a Draft article? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzilisterwiki (talkcontribs) 05:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You add a picture to a draft just as you would to an article – except that "fair use" images are only accepted in articles, not in drafts. Where, at present, is the images you want to use? Maproom (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 
A cup of tea for you
Hi, Jazzilisterwiki, welcome to the Teahouse. I am assuming you have already found an image image you want to use on Wikimedia Commons? If not, go to this main page and type a keyword in the search box (it's at the top right in desktop view). If you find an image you like, but it's not quite the right one, you could click one or more of the "Categories" listed at the very bottom of the page. This helps keep related images together and helps you find others.  
It could be like this one of a cup of tea that you want to use. Using an exisiting one is easier that a brand new image of your own that you would first have to upload from scratch. So, click on the link in the previous sentence, or click the photograph you see here - you're taken to the same place - and look just above the picture, and beneath the filename where you'll see a line of five small links. Look for the link with the tiny Wikipedia 'W' logo and the words "Use this file". Click that link and select the text offered to "Use this file on a Wiki as a Thumbnail". (The convention is always to add an image as a thumbnail, no matter how much you'd love to make it larger.) Copy the link to your clipboard and then go to the Wikipedia page you want to add it to (let's assume we want to add it to the page we're on now). Edit the page (ie click the tab labelled Edit Source). Scroll down to the section you'd like to add it to, and paste in the text you copied at the very top of that section. By default, this adds the thumbnail picture and its caption on the right hand side of the page, as you see here. To change the caption text, just edit the text to the right of the vertical bar - or 'pipe'. Don't change the filename.jpg text itself or the image link will be broken. There are some useful links on this help page: Wikipedia:Images with further guidance and tweaks, or detailed layout possibilities at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.
Of course, if you are using the alternative Visual Editor (which is a bit more WYSIWYG), the process is slightly different. You once again navigate to the section where the image is needed, then, in the editing toolbar, click Insert > Media. At the search bar in the popup that then appears, type the keyword to search for certain image types, or just type in the filename of your image you've already chosen from Wikimedia Commons. Select the image and then click 'Use this image'. Before inserting it you'll be prompted to add a caption. Captions can include hyperlinks, but that's probably best left for another time. I hope this helps.
If you need advice on actually uploading your own image first, that requires a slightly different answer and a mention of copyright issues. Let us know if you need further help on that. Regards from the UK.Nick Moyes (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a photo of the person about whom the draft is written. So I should wait to add a photo when (and if) the draft gets approved and published?

If the photo is already on WP:Commons then you could add it to the draft. If the photo is not already on commons, then we need to ask: who owns the copyright on the photo?. This will usually be the photographer unless he or she was paid to take the photo. Dbfirs 07:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jazzilisterwiki If you're referring to Draft:Jasmine Lister, then I'm afraid it's very unlikely that you will be able to add a non-free image of Lister to the article. Wikipedia's non-free content use criterion #1 does not allow non-free content to be used when there's a reasonable reason to expect that a free equivalent can be either found or created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. While "reasonable" might seem a bit subjective, the long-standing consensus regarding non-free images of living persons is to not allow them except in certain very limited cases because it's believed that a photo of the person can be taken by someone, somewhere at sometime, and this image can then be uploaded to Wikipedia under a free license. So, you will either need to find an photo taken by someone else which has been released under a suitable free license, convince someone else to release a photo they have taken under such a free license (see WP:PERMISSION) or take such a photo yourself and release it under such a free license per WP:CONSENT. If very important that you understand that "free" in this context means "free from copyright protection" and not "free of charge". Most images you find online may be able to downloaded for free, but this does not mean they are free from copyright protection. Unless it clearly states that the image has been released under a free license, you should assume it hasn't and cannot be used except as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

My quotationsEdit

Hi Recently I edited variety subjects. The references were from 'Naver encyclopedia'. I want to make sure that the 'Naver encyclopedia' is different from just 'Naver'. I know that the 'Naver' is just searching engine and do not have enough responsibility. However, the "Naver encyclopedia' that I used as quotations is a definitely different site with "Naver", and I strongly believe that it is kind of the Internet encyclopedia, like Wiki. Many people from other countries who have less understand about "Naver encyclopedia" are removing my edits and even warning me. I think the regulation about "Naver" should have some changes. ("Naver's encyclopedia" should be the exception in policy.) I want the feedback about my request as soon as possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.235.241.137 (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

If Naver Encyclopedia is, like Wikipedia, a work which anyone can edit, it cannot be regarded as a reliable source and should not be cited. Maproom (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
See also the answers already given at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 753#About citation as 'Naver". Cordless Larry (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
... so the best procedure would be to use Naver to find the original source of the information, then cite that (assuming that it is a WP:Reliable source). Dbfirs 07:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Maproom and Cordless Larry: Naver, like Google, is not just a search engine. Naver search links are not acceptable, just as google search links, but we allow Google Books links. Google doesn't have its own encyclopedia (through remember Knol?). Naver, however, does, and it is not a wiki, it seems to use experts or maybe it just aggregates and republishes other Korean online encyclopedias. Using Google Translate, I see for example an entry on panic disorder ([1]) sourced to "National Health Information Portal Medical Information http://health.cdc.go.kr/health/Main.do Author National Health Information Portal" and the entry on periodic table ([2]) sourced to "Current affairs dictionary Author pmg knowledge engine lab Provided by Park Moon-ang Theme See other books from http://www.pmg.co.kr". The links to http://terms.naver.com/ seem fine, as far as reliability / etc. and should be removed from the spamlist (or not added there, I am not sure what MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Naver exactly implies, ping User:Moxy). We need a more experienced Korean speaker to discuss this, but I think the complaint here has merit. Ping User:-revi. PS. Sample edit reverted by User:Walter Görlitz because of the assumption that naver=spam: [3]. I am not saying such edits are necessarily correct, but they should not have been reverted because of the ref. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Currently on mobile but Naver hosts contents of encyclopedia (published in paper) with proper license. I’ll look into it within few hours. — regards, Revi 09:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  1. Naver search result comes from Special:LinkSearch/https://search.naver.com, not Special:LinkSearch/http://terms.naver.com which is being discussed here. Take a closer look at the differences.
  2. Naver Knowledge Encyclopedia, according to themselves, "provides encyclopedic and professional information about various subjects". They host "Legal Terms Encyclopedia" (ISBN 9788975353413), "Nutritional science Encyclopedia" (ISBN 9788976161666), "Excerpts from National Science Museum of Korea's DB", etc etc. Most of them are already published as a paper books, so they're reliable source, IMO.
  3. They're displayed in "Knowledge Encyclopedia" section in search results.
HTH. CC: @Maproom, Cordless Larry, Dbfirs, Piotrus, Moxy, and Walter Görlitz
— regards, Revi 10:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Most of the search results one sees on Naver are paid inclusions.--Moxy (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
It might contain ads in search result, but so do Google search results contains ads in the search results. And it is not the case for terms.naver. If you want to blacklist them, block google books as well, since it's virtually same. (Digitizing books and providing them online.) I'm out. — regards, Revi 12:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
PS: Naver being search engine does not mean they have other stuff. Naver have blog.naver.com, cafe.naver.com, news.naver.com, etc etc. Unless you're going to say all of them are paid... LOL. Also, that statement (paid inclusion stuff) needs citation. — regards, Revi 12:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Just need to look at reviews Google search.
Let's set this straight. Nobody is suggesting naver search results are reliable. However, articles featured in terms.naver.com, as revi noted, seem reliable, and are often reprints of other sources. While one could dispute them on a case by case basis, and ideally pipe/convert them to the original source, rather than link to naver reprints (re-hosts?) there is no reason to revert, blacklist, or treat them as spam. PS. Come to think of it, I wonder if terms.naver can mirror (Korean?) Wikipedia articles, User:-revi? (But even if it does, they do seem to attribute a source on the bottom, so editors can check whether a particular naver terms/encyclopedia page is reliable or not). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I can say they do not mirror Korean (or other language) Wikipedia in terms.naver.com, as far as I know. They appear on search.naver.com, of course. I am not willing to discuss with someone who cannot differentiate Naver Knowledge Encyclopedia and Naver Search. — regards, Revi 09:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding a PictureEdit

 
Moanalua Gardens Teahouse - you can easily edit the caption text

How do I copy a picture onto my talk page?UnbeatableFlame154 (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello there. You can upload or choose a picture from Wikimedia Commons Thegooduser Let's Chat 01:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, UnbeatableFlame154. Just to expand on what Thegooduser said above, you might find this link to Wikimedia Commons more directly helpful. There (in desktop view) you'll find a search box at the top right. Having found an image you like, look for the small Wikipedia logo above the image, labelled "Use this file". Copy the thumbnail text and paste this into an article or your userpage. It's not normal practice to add images to talk pages unless you're actually communicating some concept to another edit. The image I've inserted here is created from this text from commons, though I've modified the last part which creates the caption text: [[File:Moanalua Gardens Teahouse - panoramio.jpg|thumb|Moanalua Gardens Teahouse - you can easily edit the caption text]]. I hope you may find our advice useful. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Reference issueEdit

NOW RESOLVED. MANY THANKS. Allan Mungall (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have only recently joined and have been trying some edits. I know how to insert or edit references but am having a problem with a particular page where - when I try to enter to enter a reference and I successfully complete the "Edit" box - it doesn't appear in the reference list. I've searched for a solution but can't find what I'm doing wrong. Can you help? Article is Megget Reservoir. Allan Mungall (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

(PS. a reference has appeared below - I didn't insert it, and I have no idea its significance???) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan Mungall (talkcontribs) 10:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The reference which you saw here when this was the last section on the page was because someone had mistakenly used ref tags in an earlier section but had not used the {{reflist-talk}} template to keep that reference in the section to which it referred. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

How do I get an image to move where I want it to?Edit

I can't get the image to go into its proper section, or to align to the left so that it fits within the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplemoonsong (talkcontribs) 16:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Purplemoonsong welcome to the Teahouse. I can see you've been working in an article which already has lots of images in various locations, so I'm going to assume you must have some very specific thing you want to achieve, rather than just copying the syntax used there. Might I suggest you check out two of our image-related help pages and see if they describe any of the scenarios you want? These are: Help:Pictures and Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. If you then want to come back and describe in detail what you're still stuck with, we'll do our best to help if we can. Oh, and please remember to sign all your posts, as someone else suggested on your Talk Page recently. Just use four tildes (~) and its popped in automatically for you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I read the articles you sent me (thank you very much for them!), and I'm trying to figure out how to co-align two images horizontally. I put what I have done into my user sandbox. If you take a look at it, it's clear that it's not right: what am I doing wrong? Purplemoonsong (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello Purplemoonsong Try this:
 {{multiple image
 | align = right
 | total_width = 400
 | image1 = Head Attributed to Arsinoe II MET DT10849.jpg
 | height1 = 
 | alt1 = alt text 1
 | link1 = 
 | caption1 = Head Attributed to Arsinoe II, depicted as an Egyptian divinity
 | image2 = Marble head of a Ptolemaic queen MET DP333700.jpg
 | height2 = 
 | alt2 = alt text 2
 | link2 = 
 | caption2  = Marble Head of a Ptolemaic Queen
 | footer = Footer spanning both images
}}

This renders as:

 
Head Attributed to Arsinoe II, depicted as an Egyptian divinity
 
Marble Head of a Ptolemaic Queen
Footer spanning both images

Vexations (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice - thanks, Vexations. Judging from their sandbox, I guess that's pretty much what Purplemoonsong was after. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Vexations! That's what I was trying to do! Purplemoonsong (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

How to direct a global entity search to the U.S. site for people in the U.S.Edit

Hi there,

When I Google "Salvation Army," even from the U.S., the info in the right siderail from Wikipedia is info and site for the UK office. What is the best way to serve the US site (www.salvationarmyusa.org) to people searching from within the US? Most people search for "salvation army" but are expecting info about the US organization.

Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidNesmith (talkcontribs) 19:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@DavidNesmith: Wikipedia does not have any control over what Google displays. You will need to contact Google to suggest a change in their search results. RudolfRed (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Here in the UK, under the "Tools" tab, Google gives the option to search any country or just UK sites. Is the same facility not available in the US? Dbfirs 19:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I'm in the US and don't see a by country filter under the "Tools" tab. But there is a region filter on the advanced search page. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 17:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank youDavidNesmith (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, How do I change the title of an article with a misspelled word?Edit

How do I change the title of an article?, It seems to bother me much. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67810Harold (talkcontribs) 02:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@67810Harold: You would need permission to move the article, which your account does not have yet. In the mean time, you can leave a message on the article's talk page (not the article itself) or here and someone else can move it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

supporting languages used in BangladeshEdit

Hello. This morning when I was searching some medical content in Wikipedia, I saw a pop up window with a humble request to support languages used in Bangladesh. Being very keen, I started to go through the provided link. Upon entering the redirected page, I could find only steps to be taken to support languages used in India and no Bangladesh. My country has a very rich history of language movement that we all take pride of. Also the specific date of movement, 21st February is celebrated as the International mother language day. I will be more than happy if I can contribute little for benefit of my mothertongue. Please clear my doubts and help finding the appropriate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuoma Munir (talkcontribs) 05:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Nuoma Munir. Thank you for your willingness to donate! As far as I know, any donation you make would benefit the entire Wikimedia Foundation, which includes Wikipedias for all of the languages listed on this page. If you don't mind, could you provide the link that you clicked to donate? -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 17:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I can not find the link any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.85.196.50 (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy DeletionEdit

Hi for no particular reason my article is up for a speedy deletion. Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrifty Kapila (talkcontribs) 07:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thrifty Kapila: it is up for speedy deletion because, as explained in the deletion notice at the top of the article, it does nothing to establish that the subject is notable enough to justify the existence of an article. Maproom (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @Thrifty Kapila: As indicated in the speedy deletion notice on top of Thrifty Kapila, there is a "particular reason", namely that it does not indicate any credible claim of significance of its subject. The only thing in there that looks like it could be a credible claim of significance is "over 7000 followers" for the Youtube channel, but even so, 7k followers is hardly enough for a Wikipedia article. Even taking into account your talk page comments, He holds an important place in Indian Advertising indstry is hardly credible for a 21-year-old person, barring sources to the contrary.
Notice that even if the article survives speedy deletion, it falls far short from meeting our requirement that article subjects be "notable" and would likely be deleted by the slower process nonetheless. You would do well to provide independent, reliable sources dealing with the subject at length to demonstrate notability.
Someone also gave you a notice linking to our guideline about autobiographies. You would do well to read it. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there any legal action against editing the pages?Edit

Hi sir,

     Will there be any legal action if found editing the pages inappropriately?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikkiusa (talkcontribs) 08:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC) 
If you continue to make edits like these, you're likely to be banned from editing Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
There will not be "legal action" unless you are breaking a law in your country with your edits; but as Maproom states inappropriate edits will lead to a Wikipedia administrator blocking you from editing. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Probably not, but deliberate and offensive vandalism has prompted legal action in the past, and should be avoided, especially as you seem to have a propensity for vandalism. - Stormy clouds (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Wikkiusa:. As 331dot points out above, editors here can land themselves in big trouble if they breach the laws of their country. You might be interested to read this recent blog post about two Greek Wikipedians who recently won a court case against them for their editing. Imagine what could have happened if they had not been acting in good faith and had not based their edits on Reliable Sources! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Mistaken redirect from Genetic Resources to GermplasmEdit

Dear tea drinkers

we note that if you look for Genetic Resources in Wikipedia, it redirects to Germplasm. This is not a good redirect because genetic resources are something else. In fact, germplasm can be seen as a subset of genetic resources, rather than the other way round. I note that there are now pages on Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Forest Genetic Resources and Plant Genetic Resources (written by a colleague of mine). So Genetic Resources cannot redirect to one of these because it would have to redirect to all three at once. i don't think it's worth having a mini page on Genetic Resources just to accommodate the redirect

I think the appropriate solution would be to remove the redirect completely. Then from the articles on AGR, FGR and PGR, where germplasm is mentioned, we can simply do a normal link to the Germplasm article.

If this seems reasonable, how would I actually do this?

Thank you ArwenIncognito--ArwenIncognito (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi ArwenIncognito and welcome to the Teahouse! It sounds like it might be reasonable to create a disambiguation page at Genetic resources pointing to the three more specific articles - what do you think? --bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Bonadea -- bonadea (talk)
Thank you for your speedy response. I am new round here, so please bear with me if i need to go through every single word and step of what you say. I have looked at the Disambiguation page notes, so this would be a page that would just list the three 'subpages' as it were (Plant Genetic Resources, Forest Genetic Resources, Animal Genetic Resources)?
Then, what about the redirection to Germplasm when you search Genetic Resources? How can we take that redirection off?
ArwenIncognito (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
You could perhaps include Germplasm as a 4th entry on the dab page, using the text from the first sentence of the Germplasm article (or similar wording) to provide the description for that entry. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I created a dab page for Genetic resources to fulfill the request. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
While adding some more links to the disambiguation page, I discovered that the singlar genetic resource page existed as well, and it was redirecting to germplasm. I redirected that page to the plural genetic resources disambiguation. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 15:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
oh my goodness! i can't believe that you have done this already! I think what you have done is a perfect solution. Thank you. ArwenIncognito (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

How to create a wikipedia article page for my organisationEdit

Hi Teahouse,

We would like to create a page related to our organisation on wikipedia, as there currently isn't one.

How do we do this?

The sandbox only allows us to create a user page, but not an encyclopedia article.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankajpiyush (talkcontribs) 13:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pankajpiyush. The first thing that you must do is comply with Wikipedia's paid editing disclosure. Next, please be aware that your company is not entitled to a Wikipedia article and due to conflict of interest concerns, editors are strongly discouraged from creating or editing articles for their own companies or companies they are involved with. You can write a draft article, though this is also discouraged, but if you decide to do so you can use the Articles for Creation process. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 13:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Making Articles for PeopleEdit

Hello! I am currently trying to edit my School's Wikipedia page and add more alumni to it. For fun, I attempted to make a page for each of them as well. My submission was refused and it was said I had no citations. I know of places where these people have been mentioned, though it is no Times article, it is something. Thought these alumni are not known around the world as heroes, they are in our area and therefore, in my opinion, justify their addition to Wikipedia. If there are any tips on how to add these pages easier, please help me. Thanks - ThiccBoiSixtyNine — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThiccBoiSixtyNine (talkcontribs) 14:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@ThiccBoiSixtyNine:, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, if a person does not meet Wikipedia's own peculiar requirements for notability, there can't be an article about them. The guideline is here, but basically, there must be multiple reliable independent sources discussing them in some detail. I'm afraid you would be wasting your own time if you tried to create articles about people who are well-known only in your local area. --bonadea contributions talk 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Help editing my SandboxEdit

Hello, I was wondering if somebody could help edit my sandbox which has information to expand the data mining section on the social media Wikipedia page. Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emkim123/sandbox Thanks! --Emkim123 (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like you've already edited your sandbox. If you want to add what you wrote to the social media page, you can suggest that it be added on its talk page, Talk:Social media. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 16:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

How to reference images from within article text?Edit

I, and many others, frequently use Wikipedia from my mobile device. The display of a page is quite different on mobile vs pc. This is especially apparent for the placement of images. Although images are placed in the same section on both media, their relative position with respect to the text differs. Namely, figures float to the top of a section on the mobile site. This can be a problem when authors refer to a figure from the text. Since the "Figure 1" style reference structure is not common on Wikipedia, authors resort to "in the image to the right" or some such. However, "the image to the right" is not a good description, since the image appears in different locations depending on the viewing medium.

So, what is the style guide for referring to an image from within the text on the same page? Ihearthonduras (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ihearthonduras. The Wikipedia manual of style, specifically this section, recommends to avoid referring to images by location for exactly the reasons that you brought up. If possible, you can move the text that refers to the image out of the article text and into the caption text for the image. Is there a specific article you can point out that has this issue? If you need assistance, please provide a link to the article so that we can help you fix it up. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 16:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for the reference. The article that specifically brought this question to mind was Lagrangian_point#L4_and_L5. However, I think that the image reference from the text is useful. Frequently in complex mathematical topics, a figure is used to illustrate some point within the context of a much longer derivation or explanation, and neither the derivation nor the figure 'stand alone.' This is why, in scientific works, we use the pretty much universal "See Fig. X" type reference. The manual of style section that you refer to specifically discourages using directional references such as 'left/right', but does not give advice on how to make such a reference when it is really warranted. Of course, it also doesn't specifically disallow the use of 'Fig. X' type references, but, although I think they would fit in fine with more scientific articles, such a habit might inadvertently bleed over into the rest of the site. (pardon my pivot from question-mode to discussion-mode :) Ihearthonduras (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Block on Page / Need HelpEdit

Hello, I am trying to assist Austin College and the Office of the President with updating their Wiki page and they cannot understand what the issue is with the submission. A COI is noted but the intern / student that is submitting on behalf of the College is working for the office of the president. Is the issue that an "employee" of the University needs to submit the application and not a student intern? They don't know which way to go with this so I am trying to interpret. The submission number and account is noted below. Please let me know how to direct them.

regards,

Stan Woodward Board of Trustees, Austin College (Annual Donor to Wikipedia as well)

Good Morning Stan, I am pasting the official correspondence from Wiki underneath this line. Presently, they recognize some of the Austin College pictures and assume copyright violations but everything in the page is directly from the college website and was approved by Lynn (office of President) before submission. Hopefully this won't be too much of an issue.

User talk:Ssalser16 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia March 2018[edit source] Copyright problem icon Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Information icon Hello, Ssalser16. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you: avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors; propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template); disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE); avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM); do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID). Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)​

Thank you, Sierra Public Affairs Student Intern Austin College | Office of the President 900 North Grand Avenue, Suite 61335| Sherman, TX 75090 www. austincollege.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan Woodward (talkcontribs) 16:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

If you go to the page User talk:Ssalser16, from which you have quoted the rendered version, you will see that there are many words or phrases in blue. These are wikilinks to further information which ought to answer your questions. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Note also that 3 accounts (subsequent to the earlier ACpublicaffairs) appear to have tried to make the same edit to the article, giving rise to suspicion of sock puppetry or meatpuppetry. You must also take note of the fact that any of you editing on behalf of your employer need to make the mandatory declaration of paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Quite the reverse (to your thought that an employee is required to submit the changes), Stan Woodward. Of all people in the world, the employees, associates, and students of the College are the least appropriate to edit the article, because it is likely to be hard for them to edit it in a neutral fashion. Wikipedia has very little interest in anything that an organisation says about itself, or that its friends, associates, employees, etc say about it; and has no interest at all in how the organisation wishes to be portrayed. An article should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it (and if there is little such material, then there cannot really be an article).
You, or any of your staff, are welcome to suggest changes on the article's talk page (declaring your conflict of interest), but it is up to uninvolved editors to decide what to do with your suggestions. Citations to published references will help your case, and to references wholly independent of the College will do so even more. --ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Stan Woodward: Please note that you cannot post copyrighted material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. In short, a copyright owner cannot offer Wikipedia a one-time license for use. Rather, the copyright to the material has to be released – permanently and irrevocably – into the public domain or under a free copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia's licenses. This is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, so all content must be licensed for that purpose. You can learn more about this policy at Wikipedia:Copyrights. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Template quuestionEdit

Would someone please look at Template: Florida and tell me why the last item in the code, the former Mosquito county, does not appear? Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi deisenbe. Template:US state navigation box#Parameters says: "There are a total of 8 group/list pairs, so you can use up to group8 and list8. Additional items can easily be added to the template if needed." title and body are aliases for group and list so you have to either omit body9 or add support for it to the template. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

PlagiarismEdit

Hello. I'm a new editor (joined 4 days ago) and would appreciate some advice. I was doing a minor edit on a Wikipedia article that had been marked as needing some work on references. It was quickly apparent that the article had been largely "lifted" from an acknowledged authority with whole paragraphs copied verbatim, with no attempt to acknowledge the source. My own view is that the extent of apparent plagiarism is such that the whole article should be deleted and re-written. 4 days in, however, a decision of that type is beyond my salary grade. Can one of you experienced editors advise me how to proceed? Allan Mungall (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The guidance is at WP:Plagiarism, but if you tell us which article then hopefully editors here can give you more specific advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks David. The subject Wikipedia article is Tay Road Bridge. The non-acknowledged source is [1] Allan Mungall (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ gracesguide.co.uk/Tay_Road_Bridge
Be careful with your links. Tay Road Bridge. is a red link; you presumably intended Tay Road Bridge? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks yet again - yes I meant the Blue one. I still have a lot to learn.  :-) Allan Mungall (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The offending paragraphs have now been removed. Many thanks. Allan Mungall (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Allan Mungall Thanks again for reporting this. However it turned out that the outside source copied us, not the reverse, this is often called a "backwards copyvio" here. I have restored the content, and put a template and a post indicating the situation on the article talk page. Please comment there if further work is needed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out, DESiegel. Apologies for confusion. Allan Mungall (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

questions: infobox publisher's template, wiki link toolEdit

Hello, I recently created an article, Marsh Hawk Press. (1.) There is an infobox template for publishers "genre" listed, but when it publishes it is listed as "fiction genre." I would like to change that to just genre since the publisher does not publish fiction, but it won't change. Assume I could take the word "publisher" out of the Infobox tag but wouldn't that defeat the purpose of using a template and keep it off the publisher list? I also took the 'founder" category out but have some names to add now, but it won't let me re-add it. (Also assume I can just add a new version of the infobox template but I like to know how things work.) (2.) An editor made the page an orphan, used the link tool, and took the orphan tag off. He was kind enough to answer my question about it but I still don't quite get it since I had lots of links in the article, but I do notice that the link tool linked to articles mentioning the press that I have not linked to so I would like to find the help page on the link tool. Have been checking out the help pages but have not been able to get to the bottom of this. Help is appreciated. Thank you.Ogmany (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Marsh Hawk Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1 - If you read Template:Infobox publisher#description of fields it says: "genre: If the publisher publishes fiction, specify the genre."
2 - WP:Orphan explains the meaning of the term. It refers to whether there are links "to" the article, not links "from" it. The "Find links" tool which the other editor used is described at User:Edward/Find link (a link that you'll find in the edit summary of his edits). --David Biddulph (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Ogmany. You should be able to add the parameter Template:Parm or Template:Parm into the infobox at any time. (It is not a category or a template itself, but a parameter to a template.) Templates only accept the set of parameters programed into them -- a new one cannot be added without changing the template itself, not just the use of it. The template documentation should list all the available parameters. If you want to propose a change or addition to a template, use its talk page, in this case Template talk:Infobox publisher. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Will mention it in the Template Talk and the Find Link tool is so useful. Did not recall I should link from other articles when creating an article. I do read the help sections but just do not absorb it all. Appreciate the Teahouse community.Ogmany (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Mentioned at Wikipedia:Your first article#Avoid orphans. Well worth reading WP:YFA carefully, if you haven't already done so. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

editingEdit

has anyone ever been blocked on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jramos420 (talkcontribs) 21:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

All vandals are eventually blocked if they fail to heed the warnings on their talk pages. We try to assume good faith and allow for the occasional mistake or childish joke, but be assured that a block always follows if advice and warnings are ignored. Why not make constructive edits, then your contribution will be appreciated? Dbfirs 21:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to add myself to Wikipedia...Edit

I'm 65 years old and technology-challenged. Proof of my identity and accomplishments predates the Internet, but I do have tons of documentation about everything: my 25-year career as a forensic artist, the books I've authored, the original certificate from Forensic Artists International that can authenticate that I am internationally certified, newspaper clippings that show of some of my composite drawings, and my website (www.drawspace.com) which has tons of information about me along with over 400 art lessons I've authored...etc... Thank you to anyone who can help me with this frustrating Wikipedia adventure! :)Bhoddinott (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bhoddinott, and welcome to the Teahosue and to Wikipedia. Please do note that writing autobiography here is discouraged, because Wikipedia articles must be neutral and most people find it hard to be neutral about themselves or their own work. Moreover, facts in articles must be supported by published reliable sources, and personal memories do not count.
Beyond all this, articles must be about "notable" topics. This means that what certificates you hav earned or what books you have written do not matter so much as what others have written about you, including reviews of your work. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of people. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello and welcome Bhoddinott! Wow, you do like a challenge, don't you. To add to DESiegel's excellent advice, I took a look your website and your edithistory and googled a little. On g-books I found books by you, which, per the above, doesn't help us. Neither did I find anything on g-news that I think helps show notability in the WP-sense. Like DESiegel said, Wikipedia:Offline sources are perfectly fine, but everything mentioned above still applies. Please consider sticking around anyway and improve articles not about you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Gråbergs Gråa Sång and DESiegel, Thank you for your words of wisdom! I do love challenges! Obviously I have a lot to learn! Again! Thank you! Bhoddinott (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

In short, unless people who are not you have written about you, at length, in publications that are not just local, i.e., your town's newspaper, not going to happen. David notMD (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

References for magazines/periodicalsEdit

ISBN references for magazines return invalid "Parameter error in {{isbn}}: Invalid ISBN" in page. How to reference magazines/periodicals properly - Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aegir.heyerdhal (talkcontribs) 22:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aegir.heyerdhal. Magazines and other periodicals do not normally get ISBN numbers, which are for books. Magazines get ISSN numbers instead, which is a different system. Please read this Bowker webpage for more information. You can use the news citation template for general circulation magazines, or the journal citation template for academic magazines. Provide as much bibliographic information as you can.
According to our ISSN article, "An ISSN, unlike the ISBN code, is an anonymous identifier associated with a serial title, containing no information as to the publisher or its location." Also, there is no online search function for ISSN numbers. Therefore, they are much less useful to readers than ISBN numbers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Aegir.heyerdhal (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)aegir Thank you! I have used the Temple:Cite Magazine and this is what I need actually. Thank you!

Editing a protected Wikipedia page.Edit

How do I edit a Wikipedia page that is protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabajuice (talkcontribs) 22:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cabajuice: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is that you don't. However, you can go to the associated talk page and make an edit request for what you would like to see done. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Photo UseEdit

I am trying to add a profile photo of an author who specifically sent me to add to her page - it was deleted with this reason - This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: © Dianna Hutts Aston. All Rights Reserved. • , http://diannahaston.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/dianna-hutts-aston-profile.jpg It is her work - do i have her log on and do it herself cuz technically it is hers?

thanks

Mikkopresents (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mikkopresents. The answer is "yes". Only the copyright holder can release a photo under an acceptable Creative Commons license, which is a legally binding agreement, which allows the photo to be used by anyone for any purpose without permission or payment. No one else can do that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
By the way, this is not a minor "technical" matter. Proper adherence to copyright law is essential to the legal viability of Wikipedia. Please read our stringent policy on copyright violations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

How do I add pictures?Edit

I made some pictures and I want to put them in some articles. Can someone tell me how to do it? Thanks -Ethan — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrexEthan (talkcontribs) 04:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi TrexEthan. While Wikipedia's appreciates your desire to contribute and your enthusiasm, I'm not sure you quite yet understand what Wikipedia is about. If these are the pictures you'd like add to articles, then I'm not sure you should try. Wikipedia articles are not really places for editors to add their own personal artwork (no matter how good they might be) unless there's a pretty good encyclopedic reason for doing so. While you might be quite good at drawing dinosaurs, I'd image that many of these articles already have enough images already added in support of the subject matter. Moreover, Wikipedia's content licensing requirements are quite strict and most user-created content such a images and photographs needs to be release under a copyright license which will allow anyone anywhere in the world to use for any purpose, including to make as much money as they can off of; so, basically you would have no real control over how other's use your work and they would not need your permission to do so. I'm not trying to discourage you, but you might be better off posting such things on your own personal website or social media accounts instead where you have a little more control. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
A different approach to your question - Which articles? Do you truly believe that the photos you have taken will improve those articles? Have you searched Commons to see if existing photos would be even better? Do you understand that if you add your photos to Commons, you give up all future rights? (There are instances of photo submiters having second thoughts and being told "too late for that!") David notMD (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Article with heavy vandalism, unsure to restore versionEdit

Hello. I came across the Seung Chan Kim article and noticed extremely heavy vandalism. I want to restore it to it's non vandalised state, but I'm worried that if I make the wrong restore version then I will get in trouble. So should I restore it? AllyGebies talk 04:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AllyGebies. You will not get in trouble if you make a good faith effort to revert clearcut vandalism. Do your best. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I have blocked the vandal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

SVG file displays a black silhouetteEdit

Hi all,

I've recently started playing around with Illustrator, and decided to create and upload a file for the coat of arms of Tepatitlan. However, the file isn't displaying correctly. If I click on "view original file (SVG)" it opens it correctly, but the preview page and the PNG previews all show a black outline instead.

Has anybody run into this problem/does anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remaggio (talkcontribs) 04:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Convenience link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Escudo_de_Armas_de_Tepatitl%C3%A1n_de_Morelos.svg Maproom (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I did a Google search and found some info that using the trace function on certain software can cause problems, also "Save to web" can cause problems in Adobe. - X201 (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

New Movie PageEdit

Hi, I just made a page for a new Punjabi movie Kande that is set to release worldwide on 11th May, 2018. However, within one day of posting the details, I received a message saying that the page has been reviewed and is in discussion for deletion. I do not understand. I did not post any copied material. All the details provided are true facts. Why? How do I let the reviewer know that the facts are true? Despite the fact that I have linked the IMDB page of the movie in the reference section of the page. Moreover, I could not even upload the theatrical release poster of the movie. The production house has released the movie poster online. How do I get a certificate for that? There are scores of other Punjabi movies that have a page on wikipedia and also their theatrical release poster in the infobox film template. For reference I am listing them here Sajjan Singh Rangroot, Disco Singh, Super Singh, Punjab 1984, Sardaar Ji, The Lion of Punjab and many more in the pipeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpit cyberframe (talkcontribs) 05:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Arpit cyberframe. The article now has only a single reference, to IMDb. Please be aware that IMDb is not considered a reliable source, except in very limited circumstances. Please read Wikipedia:Citing IMDb for more information. You need to summarize what reliable published sources say about this unreleased film. If these sources do not exist, then neither should the article. After the film is released, and if it is reviewed by multiple reliable sources, then an acceptable article can be written at that time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen. That really helps me a lot. Hope to find more references and save my first page on wikipedia from sinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpit cyberframe (talkcontribs) 05:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, Arpit cyberframe, at least part of the plot seems to have been WP:COPYPASTED from imdb. Don't do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång for your guidance. Updated the plot of the movie. That being said, why am I not allowed to update the movie poster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpit cyberframe (talkcontribs) 08:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You can upload the poster to Commons if you own the copyright, or you can upload it here to enwiki if you can provide an acceptable non-free use rationale. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Question about original researchEdit

Hi! I am looking to add articles based on information that has been verified, referencing peer-reviewed articles from journals that are published and/or produced by ivy-league universities. However, these findings go against conventional wisdom due to the way knowledge has been produced and spread since the Enlightenment. And so, they risk being removed because they go against mainstream wisdom but I see them as fundamental to our understanding of the world. What is the best way to assure/prove the quality of the knowledge I put up and how can I engage discussion on the information before the article is removed by whoever does not agree? As you may know, scientific findings are based on hypotheses that are informed by the researchers' bias, and when the researcher assumes objectivity without acknowledging their bias or stating their stand-point, this damages the quality of the information in many ways. Today we have reached the point where there is a conflict between knowledge that has been shaped by Enlightenment thinkers' biases/presumptions, and knowledge produced by researchers of today that assume their subjectivity and historico-cultural context, and take a critical stance towards knowledge that calls itself "objective" but clearly does not reflect reality. This creates a snake-biting-its-tail situation where fact delegitimizes fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggerresearch (talkcontribs) 09:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

(Note, I have moved this question to a new section as it was previously appended wrongly to another section). Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 12:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey Diggerresearch. I think you're making things a little more complicated than they need to be. Wikipedia doesn't really have an opinion on grand issues of post-Enlightenment epistemology. We just find what's in the most reliable sources available, and attempt to summarize that in articles. If there is clearly a consensus among reliable sources, and only a small minority diverges from that, we generally present the consensus view. If there is substantive disagreement among sources, then we present that disagreement.
We don't really make a judgement on whether the sources are wrong, but only whether the sources are generally reliable. If they are generally reliable, but in this instance wrong, then Wikipedia will generally be wrong also, until the sources correct themselves. GMGtalk 13:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Big help if you can give an example of an article you want to edit. And note that what Wikipedia refers to as 'original research' is unpublished information known by the editor, not information that has been published. You mention potential of article being removed. If these are existing articles and you are making changes, those might be reversed (reverted). The next step would be to open a discussion on the Talk page of that article. Remember to sign your name by type four of ~ . David notMD (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


I was trying to explain that there can be a conflict of facts, where the 2 different editors have equally reliable sources saying opposing things, and asking what to do in such a situation, but you have explained that the most important thing is the reliability of sources and that if the information has been removed, you can open a discussion after it happens. I was hoping there was a way to notify the editor about any issues on the sources before removing what was edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggerresearch (talkcontribs) 07:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

How to add a table?Edit

How to add a table — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastar ceo(Yung ceo) (talkcontribs) 13:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You can find out more about tables at Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/1 and Help:Table. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

How to change an article page title.Edit

Hello, I'm brand new to creating a page in Wikipedia, though I've spent 6 years editing a mediwiki site for my previous work.

I created an article page draft called "Institute of Cognitive Science", and realized that it should be titled "Institute of Cognitive Science at the University of Colorado Boulder". I submitted the draft for review and it is in the cue.

How do I change the article page title before it becomes a live page?

Thanks for your help, Yaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaz at UCB-ICS (talkcontribs) 14:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Yaz at UCB-ICS. A page name, in any namespace, is changed by moving it. Your account is not yet autoconfirmed so you cannot yet do this. i will move it on your behalf. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Yaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaz at UCB-ICS (talkcontribs) 15:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to Draft:Institute of Cognitive Science at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
Yaz at UCB-ICS, if, as your username suggests you are affiliated with teh institute, do please read our guideline on conflict of interst and our policy on paid editing. Please make the required disclosures promptly. Disclosure is mandatory for paid editors. Please also consider carefully if the Institute meets our guideline on the notability of organizations and is fully notable.
Also, please in future sign talk page and discussion posts with four tildes (~~~~) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again DESiegel - I went and added disclosure statements to the Talk page and my User Page. Is that sufficient? I really appreciate your help. This is a whole new world, Wikipedia. I have re-read WP:N|notable and do believe we are. I got great feedback from another reviewer so will scrutinize the writing to remove anything remotely "promotional" or self-aggrandizing sounding, and focus on how to make it clear that what we do and what we contribute, contributes to the great good. Yaz at UCB-ICS (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Merely telling the world about your organization and its good work is considered promotional on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Yaz at UCB-ICS, the best practice is to use {{paid}} on your user page, and {{connected contributor (paid)}} on the article talk page. Follow the links to the templates for what parameters to use. However, the manual disclosures you have already made should be sufficient.
It is not required that you "make it clear that what we do and what we contribute, contributes to the great[er] good.". The Nazi Party is clearly notable, but is not generally considered to have been a force for good. What is essential is that you must show that others have written about the institute, in published reliable sources. Notability is never demonstrated by recounting what the subject has said or written, but how others have taken note of the subject by writing about it. Each source must cover the subject in some detail for it to help establish notability, and there should be several such sources, all independent of the Institute (or of whatever the article's subject is, in other cases). You need above all to make it clear who has written about the institute, and when and where. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

DESiegel and 331dot, this is very helpful guidance. I'll keep working on it. This draft and approval system is valuable for this rather high learning-curve for me, and I am grateful for all your input.Yaz at UCB-ICS (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

View my deleted contribution/editEdit

Hi, I found the Xtools page and noticed a section called deleted edits and I can see that one of my edits was deleted entirely. I cannot view this? I understand that only admins can view deleted content but why can users not view their own deleted content?

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/c0n0r97

Is there any way I can reach out to someone with the appropriate permissions who can tell me what was deleted? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0n0r97 (talkcontribs) 15:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello C0n0r97, and welcome to the Teahouse. You reverted a change to Dorothy the Dinosaur and Friends Video made by an IP editor. However, that entire article has been deleted via the proposed deletion process as not being notable. Therefore, all edits to the article are now deleted edits, including the edit where deletion was proposed. It is very common to have deleted edits, I have over 3,000 myself. our policy restricts display of deleted content to a limited number of users holding advanced permissions, such as Admins. There is no exception for a user viewing his or her own edits, this would add technical complexity and might be inappropriate in some cases. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and please in future sign your comments on talk and discussion pages like this one (not in articles) with four tildes (~~~~). The software will convert this to a link to your user page, or your custom signature if you have specified one, plus a timestamp. Thank yiu. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


Ah I see, thank you very much! C0n0r97 (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Using video from CommonsEdit

I'm trying to include a video fron Wikipedia commons in the article The Jubalaires. I'm having trouble. The relevant video portion starts at 8:17. Is there a way to cue it up or clip the relevant portion? The bigger problem I'm having is including it with a caption. The "thumb" bit used for photos makes ot a still image. Thanks for any help / suggestions. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello FloridaArmy See Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax#Video_files for instructions. Vexations (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Problem uploading photo for my user pageEdit

Just getting started on Wikipedia. created a userpage and then tried to upload a photo of myself that I took myself and got an error. Error states: We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons. What am I doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimdunneg (talkcontribs) 17:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

(Note, I have moved this question to a new section as it was previously appended wrongly to another section). Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Jimdunneg, welcome to the Teahouse, and welcome back to Wikipedia! I'm not sure why you got that message (unless some algorithm thought there was either too much flesh - or or too many books - in your picture!) Either way, it looks like you've now managed to upload your photo to your userpage. I've left a few helpful links for you, by way of welcome, and if we can be of any help, do feel free to come back and ask questions at any time. Things have certainly moved on a lot from the very early days of Wikipedia. Here's how it looked at the end of 2001. Now we have a host of help pages, lots of guidelines, and even one or two policies we expect folk to adhere to, and a range of ways to get assistance, too. But then, with 33 million users registered, 137,000 active editors this last month and 5.6 million+ articles now on English Wikipedia alone, a few guidelines are probably what we do need. Inevitably, newcomers (and returnees) can find these a bit hard to navigate through at first. So, any problems, just let us know and we'll try to help. Oh, and we now have around 2,000 'WikiProjects' which bring together editors to work on common interests, as well as 1,500 Portals which act as 'Topic Tasters' for people interested in simply getting a feel of a range of articles on a single broad topic. Hope you stick around - it looks like your skills could be very useful here. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jimdunneg: First of all, you were presumably trying to upload at Wikimedia Commons, not on Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons is a sister project with different procedures etc.
I suspect that you missed the "release rights" step at commons:Special:UploadWizard and mistakenly indicated that the photograph was taken by someone else. Can you tell us which exact steps you took? (Which licensing option you clicked, etc) TigraanClick here to contact me 09:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia CuratorEdit

How can I become a curator on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgedColtron (talkcontribs) 18:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, JudgedColtron, welcome to Wikipedia and to our Teahouse. I'm guessing you're asking asking about Wikipedia:Page Curation (click this link for more details) in which trusted editors are given permissions to monitor and approve the live feed of new pages, around 700 or more of which are created every day, and quite a lot put forward for immediate deletion on various specific grounds. We expect a minimum skill level/competency to have be attained, and so the benchmark for requesting and being granted permission to help out with page curation is having 500 uncontested edits in the main body of Wikipedia (='mainspace') and having been active for at least 90 days. You do have a little way to go yet, but we're always keen to help and encourage new editors like you. Just keep actively editing, learning from questions asked here and elsewhere, or by any mistake you make as you go along (it happens to all of us at first). I hope this answers your question? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It does. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgedColtron (talkcontribs) 22:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Father's Wikipedia PageEdit

My father has a Wikipedia page that needs to be updated since he passed away. I have no idea what his log-in was - is this something I can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianne5436 (talkcontribs)

Do you know of any articles he created or edited? Deb (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean there's a Wikipedia article about him, (like Albert Einstein for example), that needs the details of his death adding to it? If so, what was his name? - X201 (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I think she means he is an editor that has passed. Any info about what articles he used to work on would probably get us there. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Dianne5436: my condolences on your loss. Your father's log-in is irrelevant for getting access, as all accounts are required to be personal to individuals; but there are no pages anywhere on Wikipedia that can be edited only by one particular account. As the other replies have indicated, we're not sure exactly what you are asking. If your father was the subject of an article, the best thing to do is to put a note on the talk page associated with that article explaining that he has passed away, and (if possible) providing a link to a published obituary. If you put the template {{edit request}} (with the double curly brackets) somewhere in your posting, it will be put on a list of requests, and somebody will get around to editing the article to insert the information.
If your father was a Wikipedia editor, and you want to update his user page to show he is deceased, then you will need to find his account name somehow - as Insertcleverephrasehere said, knowing some articles he worked on might lead us to that. Then you can either edit the User page yourself, or similarly put a request on his User Talk page for somebody else to do so. --ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
It may not be appropriate, Dianne5436, but English Wikipedia does maintain this memorial listing of its editors who are known to have passed on. Their user pages can be protected or messages left in accordance with family wishes, if required. Please accept our condolences. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Skins and referencesEdit

Hi folks -- is there a Wikipedia skin that will show material inside ref tags in a different colour than body text when editing? I often find it confusing to try to edit a big block o text when it's difficult to see which is which. Thanks!!! PaulCHebert (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi PaulCHebert, welcome to the Teahouse. It's not a skin but "Syntax highlighter" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets does this and more. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes - I'd thoroughly recommend it. Great for spotting if you've not paired a set of commands correctly, too. (Hadn't realised it had been rolled out from Beta testing) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
"Wikitext syntax highlighting" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures is a different but similar feature. And then there is "wikEd" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets which is an editor and includes a third syntax highlighting feature. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks, PrimeHunter. Didn't know that. Do you think it's worth switching over from the beta version of syntax highlighter (which I currently use)? Might give it a try, anyway. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't have experience with either. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Dedicated and helpful communities FTW. PaulCHebert (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia?Edit

Forgive me for asking - and then answering - my own question. But folks at the Teahouse might be interested (and surprised) by this recent blog post on that very subject from the Wikimedia Foundation. It says that across all language wikipedias, these are the most frequently cited references:

  1. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification:  2,830,341 citations
  2. Prediction of Hydrophobic (Lipophilic) Properties of Small Organic Molecules Using Fragment Methods: An Analysis of AlogP and CLogP Methods:  21,350 citations
  3. The status, quality, and expansion of the NIH full-length cDNA project: the Mammalian Gene Collection (MGC):  20,247 citations
  4. The de Vaucouleurs Atlas of Galaxies:  19,068 citations
  5. The Complete New General Catalogue and Index Catalogues of Nebulae and Star Clusters by J. L. E. Dryer:  19,060 citations
  6. Galaxies and How to Observe Them:  19,058 citations
  7. A Concise History of Romania:  15,597 citations
  8. Catalog of Fishes California Academy of Sciences:  11,980 citations,
  9. Dictionary of Minor Planet Names:  10,651 citations
  10. National and religious composition of the population of Croatia, 1880-1991: By settlements:  8,230 citations

Nick Moyes (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It sounds difficult to count. In the English Wikipedia, the string "New York Times" gives 219,946 article hits, "Los Angeles Times" 68,759, "Washington Post" 66,599, "Encyclopædia Britannica" 40,790, "2010 United States Census" 13,686. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I should perhaps have clarified - the blog post was only counting those articles using citations which referenced a unique identifier like a DOI or ISBN number etc, rather than a broader newspaper or general periodical. But interesting for all that. I note that commenters to the blogpost also picked up on issues like NYT. (I wonder if they found the handful of Wikipedia article that still link to the Daily Mail.) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright to remove maintenance tag from this article?Edit

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

After multiple additions to fix the maintenance tag (mt) issue, the mt remains.

Tried to remove the mt, but looks like it may only be revised, instead of removed altogether.

Please advise.

Thank you.

PS: If alright to remove the mt, please feel free ("thank" forthcoming). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tqiwiki (talkcontribs) 01:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I just did; it seemed to me that the article had ample inline cites. Ravenswing 01:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Profiles in different languagesEdit

Do I have to create a new user page in each language? If so, why?

I would also like to ask, is there a page for "titles" that can be added to profiles? Because I got most of mine from copying those of another user, and I think it would be cool if you could just look at a list of "most popular titles" and pick and choose from there/ be directed to a page with more if you click on one.

Thanks, & have a nice day Tolkien5 (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tolkien5: Yes, you need create a user page for each language Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia is separate, so even though your account will work on all of them, pages are not automatically created from one to the other. To explore all the userboxes that have been created so far, check our Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries RudolfRed (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
With all due respect, I will disagree with the first part of the response from RudolfRed above. No, you don't need to create a page separately for each language. Your meta user page at meta:Special:MyPage will be shown on any wiki where you don't have a local user page. See meta:Global user pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Neat. Thanks for the info! -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 04:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tolkien5: It's optional for editors with accounts to have a user page at the English Wikipedia. Each wiki makes its own rules but I guess it's optional in all or nearly all wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit to semi-protected pagesEdit

I am looking to add information to page that is semi-protected. I wanted to expand on a particular question. How can I make the edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompkeh (talkcontribs) 03:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have added a section heading before your question, as it did not appear to refer to the section in which you placed it. Users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page (with references to reliable sources to support the change), using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Thompkeh, welcome to the Teahouse. If you cannot edit a page then the easiest way to start a request is by clicking the "View source" tab. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but your information is incorrect about the Officer Down Memorial Page . They were being dispersed back in the 1970 and 1980 by a different organization I have one and How can I prove it to you?Edit

As above in subject. I recived the same badge by Guardian-Tactical.com in 1981 and other awardes in 1983 from the Police Hall of fame in florida and the state of Oklahoma The Police Medal of Honor, the Police Purple Heart and the Legion of Honor. this should be noted. as a lot of us received the badges prior to this group taking over and their NOT recognizing them. Once again the LORD saved me and thats why I am now a Ordained Minister with a Doctor of Divinity Degree. If you have a email address I can show proof. I dont know who is reading this . But a lot of Officer's families are being disserviced by this page. some one needs to do research before posting. The person sending mine stated that if I lived or died I deserve the badge for what I went though. I had a 35 year service. And proud of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by First Seargeant (talkcontribs) 05:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @First Seargeant: Good day. Welcome to Teahouse and thank you for your question above. First of all, we would like to let you know that we understand your intent and thank you for serving the country and keep the citizens safe.
I believe you are referring to this edit of Officer Down Memorial Page article in Wikipedia (believe you had edit with an IP address prior you registered in Wikipedia) which I have reverted due the content is "unsourced". Content in an article in Wikipedia needs to support with independent, reliable source, such as from reputable newspaper, to support the content claimed for verification. For any incidents happen (even it is true and you have personally eyewitnessed it), a source is still needed for the content to be added in. Once again thank you for your service as it is very much appreciated. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The article Officer Down Memorial Page is about the current organization of that name, not about other organizations named after Down. Maproom (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

how to add infoboxEdit

Hi Teahouse,

How do I add an infobox using Visual Editor? I only can see a limited number of templates available to use - none of which relate to the page I'm creating. When I add information to the normal 'infobox' it doesn't actually appear on the page.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks, FoxyBrown9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxyBrown9 (talkcontribs) 10:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse FoxyBrown9! In the Visual Editor, you can start an opening {{, and it should bring up a menu where you can search for templates, of which infoboxes are included. Also, when you say that it doesn't appear on the page, perhaps you forgot to publish the edit, as your message here at the Teahouse is currently your only edit. Thanks, Vermont | reply here 10:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Help creating a biography in wikipediaEdit

Hey TeaHouse. I've been trying for the last month to create a biography of a famous portuguese painter Adelino Ângelo Leite de Faria de Lemos Magalhães and the moderators of wikipedia only know how to disable or erase my pages , i've asked many times for them to help me & explain to me what am i doing wrong. Can i leave a draft of what im doing here ? So if anybody can give me a hand ? One problem the draft is in portuguese :/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mestre_Adelino_%C3%82ngelo — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiogoChe12 (talkcontribs) 10:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi DiogoChe12 and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean Draft:Mestre Adelino Ângelo, then there's not much point in trying to create an English Language article written entirely in Portugese. Are you wanting someone to translate it into English for you? The second problem is that there isn't a single reference. See WP:Referencing for beginners. Dbfirs 10:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for answering, im trying to create a portuguese article but i couldnt find a portuguese "teahouse" like yours, so i could have some support cause im realizing that is not that easy to creat/write a wikipedia article. So my main concern should be having relying references ? could it be books ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiogoChe12 (talkcontribs) 11:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't read Portuguese, so I'm not sure which Cafe is most appripriate on the Portuguese Wikipedia, but you could try this question page, or follow the links from there. You also need to copy your draft to the Portuguese Wikipedia. Books published by established publishers would make good references. You really need to get your support from the Portuguese Wikipedia because their rules might be slightly different from ours. I can see your addition of a file to Commons, but I cannot find any contributions from you on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Have all your contributions been erased, or do you have a different user name there? Dbfirs 11:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I see that you have added an English date of birth to the draft in Portuguese. There doesn't seem much point in this unless you are planning to translate the draft into English. Dbfirs 16:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what is wrong with my article: Duplexer notes for the 2m Amateur bandEdit

All the material presented is verifiable if you sit down with a soldering iron, the test gear and a cavity as pictured.

I'm trying to explore and compare different techniques.

Is it a title problem? Should it be: Duplexer notes on VHF when the frequency spacing is small

The article is in my Sandbox.

AlanVK2ZIW (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi AlanVK2ZIW and welcome to the Teahouse. The article reads like a "how to" manual, and contains what looks like your original research. Neither of these is appropriate for an encyclopaedia. You might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners Dbfirs 12:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey AlanVK2ZIW. It looks like you've put a lot of work into this, but unfortunately, as pointed out above, you're taking a bit of a wrong approach. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's goal is to provide a broad encyclopedic overview of a subject, rather than an in-depth step-by-step guide. So for example, we would say something like:

A hammer is a tool or device that delivers a blow (a sudden impact) to an object. Most hammers are hand tools used to drive nails, fit parts, forge metal, and break apart objects. Hammers vary in shape, size, and structure depending on their purposes.

However, we would not say something like:

In order to use a hammer, first grip the handle with your dominate hand. For more delicate work, it's best to grip closer to the head of the hammer, but for more force with less accuracy, you should grip toward the base instead.

Having said that, since you appear to be knowledgeable about the subject, it does look like we have existing articles for both Repeater and Radio repeater, and both of them look to contain a heckuva lot of unsourced information. So probably a good place to start would be using your familiarity with the subject to try to find sources that meet our standards for reliability and add references to the existing articles, rather than trying to make a new one. GMGtalk 12:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@AlanVK2ZIW:, as someone who spent a lot of their teenage years transmitting on the 2 metre ham radio frequencies in the London area, even building my own 5-valve superheterodyne receiver in the mid-1970s to get me onto the HF bands as an SWL, but never quite managing to get my CW up to scratch for a class A transmitting licence, I just thought I would chip in here. I'm afraid GreenMeansGo is absolutely right to say that you've unfortunately picked up the wrong end of the stick about Wikipedia. It is an encyclopaedia, in which we only collate factual information already available in reliable sources, published or written about in depth, supported by references to allow others to confirm what is said is correct. It's really not a radio shack compendium of RF knowledge, loosely assembled, no matter how much your photos personally inspire me to dig out a few of my old bits of kit, power up a still-treasured QQV0640 valve, or set off up a hill with my old TR2200G 2m transceiver. Now, I could possibly pull out my old RSGB Amateur Radio Manual and use it as a source to support a few notable concepts related specifically to amateur radio, or to radio communications in general, like Duplex (telecommunications). But I really wouldn't be allowed to create a page as you have done here, no matter how well-meaning it was. I'm sorry about that. I really advise you to consider putting that content on a free website like Google blogger. That's the best way to ensure your skills and knowledge don't get lost, and are readily available. Or, as already suggested, carefully contributing to poorly-cited articles about other RF-related topics which already exist. If it has't already been reapplied, I do feel I must put the 'speedy deletion' notice back on, as I see you've since copied it from your sandbox into mainspace here. That's not to say we don't welcome your contributions - just that this one is way off the mark and style of what we can accept. May I suggest you might wish to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Amateur radio which is one of 2,000 projects bringing editors together who have close interests at heart. Welcome again, and 73s from my QTH here in the Midlands of England. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Is this the sort of article that Wikiversity would accept? It seems a pity not to publish it somewhere. Dbfirs 15:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Nirbhaya case delhi 2012Edit

Why in the whole artical written on nirbhaya rape and murder case there is no information about the name of juvenile accused are you guys running some propeganda against a perticular religion if not then why you are not putting his(juvenile) name in the artical on the other hand you have used other acccused names at several places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.114.169.190 (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello anon. If you would like to suggest changes to the article, you can do so on the article talk page. But if you start off the discussion with accusations of prejudice and propaganda, you're probably not going to get very far. Editors are expected to treat others with civility while working to improve the encyclopedia. GMGtalk 14:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Like he says. Wikipedia has many thousands of active editors, with widely disparate views. If you accuse all of us of being involved in a conspiracy, you're making a lot of enemies, and that isn't going to help your cause. Maproom (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Specific Talk PageEdit

If I see a page that needs loads of edits, but I'm not sure how to edit them, if I leave a comment on that specific pages 'talk page' will someone be notified about my comment, or will it be there for years unseen?

An example is 'The Worst Witch' book series which has increased from 7 books to 8 books, with 2 spin-off books in the last 5 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worst_Witch

So I've left a comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Worst_Witch

--Danstarr69 (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Danstarr69. You can add the text {{Help me}} to your comment on the talk page, and it will be added to a queue of editors who have requested help and need assistance. GMGtalk 14:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Danstarr69: That is very good advice from GreenMeansGo, because some pages are monitored by very few people at all. However, my kids used to love the The Worst Witch and TV programme so I expected quite a few people might be interested in it. People who 'watch' pages receive automated notifications whenever a change is made to the article or to its talk page. So how to find out how many? Well, simply click the 'View History' tab for that article, and then, a couple of lines down from the main title, you'll see a line beginning "External Tools". Go along that line and click 'Number of Watchers" and you'll see it currently has 39 people monitoring it. (I might have guessed higher, actually), so in this instance I'm sure someone might well have seen your comment. But GMG's suggestion ensures someone responds to you on that page very quickly - and I see you've now done that - so they may help if you aren't sure how to do it yourself. We do have a saying here: 'Be Bold' but sometimes if a person changes a 'fact' without supporting it with evidence, someone else may well pop by and revert it as unsupported. In this instance you appear to have provided the evidence, too, so thank you for your contribution. Next time, why not give it a go yourself - it's a great way to gradually learn how to do stuff. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

page in sandbox rejectedEdit

Hi all ,

my page was rejected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ismaine_ayouaz but does not look different than the two following pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Collins-Muhammad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Cohn

do I need to have someone that is not me to draft is and publish it ? what ca I do about it. if those pages are valid, why mine which is similar is rejected ?

in advance thanks !

Ismaine ayouaz The decline notice says "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." Is there anything about the explanation that follows immediately after that is unclear? Have you followed the links to Wikipedia:SECONDARY, Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources, Wikipedia:BIO, Wikipedia:VRS, Wikipedia:Common_sourcing_mistakes_(notability) Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners, Help:Introduction_to_referencing/1 Wikipedia:V Wikipedia:N in that note? I know, it's a lot to read. Probably too much, so you might want to start with WP:POLITICIAN and WP:AUTOBIO. Vexations (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Vexations I got it.. thanks !

Android Wikipedia has a summary line not shown via browser - how to edit it?Edit

Hi!

I was looking on my smartphone using the Wikipedia app at "Martin McDonagh". Following his name, it shows the following in italics - "Irish Turkish film director and playwright". Believing this to be wrong and not finding any reference to it in the rest of the entry, I went to Wikipedia via my computer using Firefox to edit it - but found this summary line does not exist.

How can I submit an edit for this line? I have also written under "Talk" in the entry waiting for a response.

BESTEST Life-Is-An-Adventure (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Life-Is-An-Adventure The string "Irish Turkish film director and playwright" comes from the wikidata item: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q372394 It's likely vandalism, introduced in this edit Vexations (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I have fixed the Wikidata entry now, thank you for pointing this out. If you want to correct such erroneous information yourself, you can usually access the Wikidata page via the "Wikidata item" link in the toolbar on the article page. GermanJoe (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Soon we will be changing over to Wikipedia:Short descriptions. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

wikipedia deleting pageEdit

Hi I need help. I tried to create a page regarding a virtual sim. I explained the history with references and what it does?

Can someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony elliot (talkcontribs) 19:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I have replied on your talk page, and moved the article to a draft. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or ask here. Happy editing! Vermont | reply here 20:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

user making numerous dubious editsEdit

I notice a lot of dubious edits made by one particular user... see Special:Contributions/101.178.163.208.

I was particularly noticing a change to Human rights in the United Arab Emirates regarding the legality of publicly kissing, which appears to be blatantly inaccurate, and which lacks a supporting reference, but I also noticed that a large percentage of the changes from this user have been reverted.

What is the proper way to request an administrator to further investigate and restrict the user, assuming that is deemed to be appropriate? Fabrickator (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The edits from this IP seem to be more about disagreements between them and other editors than blatant vandalism. In cases like this, it's best to try and discuss with them on their talk page or the article's talk page. (Remember WP:CIVIL) If that does not work, and disruptive edits continue, you could consider bringing it up on WP:ANI, which is where administrators will notice and respond to the issue. Vermont | reply here 21:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Using sourcesEdit

Can sources from the office of historic resources of a city's website be used if other sources are difficult to find? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Rivera Jr (talkcontribs) 02:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, David Rivera Jr. Use of such supplemental sources is acceptable if (and only if) there are reliable, independent sources in the article that establish that the topic is notable. In other words, the city's website does not establish notability of something that the city itself designates as "historic". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Михаил Самойлович ХазановскийEdit

Hello,

in March 2018 I created an article about Michael Samoilovich Khazanovsky in Russian (Михаил Самойлович Хазановский). He was one of the founders of this music boarding school for talented youth in Kharkov, Ukrain - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0-%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82 I created this article in the Sandbox under my account. Now I`m trying to find out what happened to it and I can`t find it anywhere. Can someone please help.

Also, I checked the deletion log and all public logs and don`t see it. I would really like to have it retrieved as I didn`t save the latest version of it anywhere else.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Elena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Елена Хазановская (talkcontribs) 02:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Just to check, did you save it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnbeatableFlame154 (talkcontribs) 03:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I`m pretty sure I did. It was there when I created it and then a few days after I checked it to find out the status and it was still there. Now I don`t see it. I created it around March 16, 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Елена Хазановская (talkcontribs) 03:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Your contributions to the Russian Wikipedia are shown at ru:Служебная:Вклад/Елена_Хазановская. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
w:ru:Инкубатор:Хазановский, Михаил Самойлович must be it. Seems like there are some issues with that article, maybe you should first create it on a user page like w:ru:Участник:Елена Хазановская/Инкубатор:Хазановский, Михаил Самойлович or indeed in your sandbox. Alexis Jazz (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I pasted my article to my Sandbox. Will it not be deleted from there? I realized I need to make some more edits. So I`ll submit for review once I`m done. Also I want to add Michael`s portrait, and it`s probably just a matter of attaching the file. And I also am not sure how to format the table that is usually placed in the top right hand corner with the summary of the main dates and names. I don`t remember how I created it initially, and now in the Sandbox I don`t see that option. It just appears as simple text, not as a table. Thank you to all who responded!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Елена Хазановская (talkcontribs) 04:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are drafting an article in Russian, you ought to use your account at the Russian Wikipedia, not the English one. You can create user subpages & user sandboxes there, see ru:Википедия:Личная_страница_участника#Подстраницы_участника. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Елена Хазановская (talkcontribs) 04:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

And to answer your question about "the table that is usually placed in the top right hand corner with the summary of the main dates and names", if you look at your draft at ru:Инкубатор:Хазановский, Михаил Самойлович you'll see that it uses the template ru:Шаблон:Персона, the Russian equivalent of Template:Infobox person. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Another questionEdit

I’m back and I do have a question. I would like to add David Meade’s April 23rd prediction to Portal:Current events/2018 April 23. Which statement can I use when I add it to the page, once it’s created by a bot? —LovelyGirl7 talk 05:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LovelyGirl7. Why would we add a prediction from a discredited religious crank to such a page? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)