Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 144

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 140

←

Archive 142

→

Featured list

Hi, when I am writing an article, hopefully to be a featured list (here if you're interested), then do I need referencing for ever single box in the table? For example, if I had that the previous currency was an Austrian schilling, do I need to source that? I ask mainly as I was following the policy of at least one source per box, yet when I looked at List of circulating currencies, a currency FL, it has only one source at most in a row.

Also, if there are any people out there who know what standard of prose is expected at FL, do I need all the things I have listed on the talk page of the draft? Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Matty. List of circulating currencies was promoted in 2006, when standards were much lower, and I would think would not come close to passing review today because of lack of sourcing. If you go to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates and use your computer's find function (usually ctrl+f or ⌘ Cmd+f on a mac), and search for unsourced you will see that numerous nominations are either being opposed or flagged for correction because a section of prose or some part of the list table is "unsourced". It looks to me like you've substantially provided sourcing for everything thus far, so I'd recommend continuing. The standard prose expected of a featured list is "professional standards of writing", quoting from Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. You will certainly need a compelling lead but the list looks well on its way. I think if you post at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates you might get a more nuanced take as to what needs to be sourced and what not though. I can't speak to the talk page ideas but the criteria do require comprehensiveness. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox queryCastabile (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

When my article is published, should I just delete it from my sandbox? Or leave it and create a new sandbox page (not sure how to do that last, if that's the case)?Castabile (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you decide at some stage to submit your sandbox draft for review (and I see that you haven't worked on it for more than 6 months), then it may well be moved to a page in the space used by the WP:AFC process, and then if approved it would be moved on again into mainspace. This would be done by moving, not copying, and all that would be left at your sandbox in that case would be a redirect; in that case you could delete the redirect from your sandbox, or turn it into a simple link rather than redirect. You could start a draft of another article in your old sandbox address, or you could create one or more new drafts as subpages in you user space, such as User:Castabile/Whatever your new article title would be. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Castabile. You can't delete articles yourself. What you can do is put {{db-g7}} there, and an administrator will take care of the deletion.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How do I get Wikipedia to write a page?

There is a brnewly established supporter owned soccer team based in Nashville, TN that should probably have a page on here but, I'm clueless how.Jonesy2182 (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, talk, and welcome to the Teahouse! Before starting to create an article, you should first find out if the soccer team has been written about in several independent sources such as news reports, sports magazine articles, etc. Every Wikipedia article has to have these. If the team is new, it may be that no one has written about it yet, in which case it's too soon for an article in the encyclopedia. However, if you do find some published sources about the team, then you can should read "Wikipedia:Your first article" to see how to create an article. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jonesy. You could ask for an article to be created here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any announcement at U.S. soccer or at U.S. Soccer clubs about a Nashville team and the latter list includes 2014 and 2015 expansion teams. Organizing the team could be still in the planning stages and it's important to remember, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, meaning, that WP doesn't publish articles about events before they happen (as documented in reliable sources). But it is an article you could start working on in your Sandbox! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How to request feedback for article created in User space?

I would like to move the article, but I would like to be sure if it's eligible for publication. Is there any way to request editors' feedback so I can correct the article and not end up with article nominated for speedy deletion. Thanks. Gadelichka (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a {{user draft}} tag to the top of your draft. If you are happy with the draft, click on the "Submit" link in the box at the top of the article, and it will then be reviewed through the WP:AFC process, & you will be given any necessary feedback. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you a lot.

Gadelichka (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent additions such as "The website boasts high functionality and features and is tailored to both members and publishers." will leave you open to suspicion that, like your previous attempt at StivaSoft, it is aimed at advertising and promotion. Wording like "They can choose to have their products reviewed by our GeekyCorner writers." will encourage that suspicion. If you are editing on behalf of an organisation with which you are connected, please read WP:COI very carefully. If the organisation or the product is really notable, then someone else will write about it; if not, it doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, you need to remove external links from the body of the article. A few relevant ones can be included in an "External links" section as described at WP:External links. You need to understand the dfference between external links & references. You were provided with a number of useful introductory links in the welcome message on your user talk page a couple of years ago; it is well worth reading those, and any follow-on links from there that you need if you are after further detail. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

adding mssing info

I would like to suggest that the Film "Let the Good Times Roll" from 1972 be added to little Richard's Filmography. I do not know how to edit HTML and wonder how I can propose this insertion?Videoheads (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need to know how to edit HTML. There are two ways of editing Wikipedia articles. There is a beta version of a WYSIWYG editor called Visual Editor, which is available on some browsers with link [edit^beta]. There are, however, bugs in that, so most editors prefer the older editor, accessed via the [edit source] link. Try clicking on the "edit source" link alongside the relevant section heading in the Little Richard article. The article to which you want to link is Let the Good Times Roll (film) and the article says it is from 1973, not 1972. To provide a link which doesn't show the word "(film)", you can link it with the syntax [[Let the Good Times Roll (film)|]], (note the "pipe" character | at the end of the link) which will display as Let the Good Times Roll. If you don't feel confident in editing it yourself, you can always put your suggestion in a new section on the article's talk page, which you can get to with a click on the "Talk" tab at the top of the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

..., and another editor has provided you with a number of useful welcoming links on your user talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Videoheads, and welcome to Wikipedia. David gave a great answer there. I'd just like to add, as you get started with editing Wikipedia, please feel free to ask any question, big or small, here at the Teahouse. We're here to help! Cheers, --LukeSurl^{t c} 11:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Colored text feature when editing in source mode.

Some time ago, I found a feature that changed the appearance of the text when editing in source mode. Different parts of the code had different background colors, according to their function.

Last day I was toying with my settings, and I messed it up. Could somebody tell me how can I have this feature back? Thanks!--Fauban 10:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fauban. Go to Special:Preferences, click on "Gadgets", and then turn on Dot's Syntax highlighter. Cheers, --LukeSurl^{t c} 10:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the preferences page seems to have changed, no Gadgets tab (or any other tabs) any more, so it's under an "Editing" heading. Apparently that one doesn't work under Internet Explorer. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This is how I find the option in chrome. Is it different in other browsers? --LukeSurl^{t c} 10:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Tabs have now reappeared; perhaps my browser was playing up? - David Biddulph (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!--Fauban 10:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I cite a Wiki Commons Photo?

I have a photo of the subject I am working on for my wiki page (the mobile trauma bay). The photo has associated text that I would like to bring into my article, but I am not sure this is possible.

The photo is LVSR with Mobile Trauma Bay2.jpg

The caption in Commons I would like to cite is: "From the time it was proposed to the time it was completed, 914 concept drawings in four months resulted in what was unveiled today." There is a link to the source but that does not work. It does give the author.

If anyone out there can help, I'd greatly appreciate it. GMarin 04:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but the original photo, including the caption (and the release to the public domain), may now be found at http://www.lejeune.marines.mil/Photos.aspx?igphoto=10568 .--Larry (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Larry! Insert the picture into the article as normal, write the caption and at the end of it add an inline citation to [1] to support the fact in the text. Cheers, --LukeSurl^{t c} 06:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks this IS helpful. I will try it and see how i get to the stage in my article. Much appreciated. Lily

GMarin 04:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrh246 (talk • contribs)

Way to solve issue related to speedy deletion and edit war

Hi, recently I created a new article, an English version of the article in Japanese. Then speed deletion was tagged by another user. I contested that deletion, but I got no reaction from that. So I created the article again. Next the article was edited to be redirected to another article. The redirected article is related to the original article, but just a part of it. So I edited again, then I got a message to warn that I am engaged in edit war. I put comments to validate the purpose of the article, but I have not received any response so far. I need advice how to exit from this circumstance where I am totally stuck. JUPITER8 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello,JUPITER8! I presume that you are talking about the article called Celsys. Asking at this forum is a good start. From what I understand, Celsys is a software company that has made a product called Mango Studio, which has an article. I read the article that you wrote about Celsys, but it didn't include any references to independent sources such as news reports, computer magazine articles, books, etc., to show that this is a notable company. If Mango Studio is its only well known product, then the redirect to the Mango Studio page is correct, and you can add material about Celsys there. If you do find a number of news articles (not press releases) or other published material about Celsys which has not been created by the company, then you can show them on the article's talk page, and see if the editors who previously thought that the article would not do will then change their minds. It's the presence of good, reliable, independent sources to verify your information that will make the difference. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello JUPITER8, and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, stop edit warring. You must stop, or you will be blocked. Stop, and discuss things.

You created an unreferenced article about a Japanese software company. Wikipedia articles should be referenced to reliable, independent sources. Experienced editors have redirected the article to an existing article about well-known software issued by the company. Drmies, a highly experienced editor and administrator, explained that to you back on September 6. Instead of adding references, you have edit warred to create the article all over again. Your comparison to Microsoft and Windows in previous discussions is invalid, as both of those topics have received significant coverage in thousands of reliable sources, and the topics are indisputably notable. Where are the reliable sources for your article?

So, the way to exit is to stop edit warring. If you have reliable sources that show the notability of the topic, bring them forth on the talk page for the redirect. Do not fight with highly experienced editors who know what they are doing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Cullen. I have little to add, just one thing. The article now has a reference supposedly verifying the METI award (supposedly, because my Japanese is very rusty). Note that I just created a redirect for that award. That in itself might be enough to hold off speedy deletion since it is some kind of claim of importance; if that had been added earlier, this back-and-forthing might not have happened. But I see that JUPITER has restored the redirect, which kind of puts a stop on this discussion. I don't know what the best solution is; if there's nothing else on the subject that's reliable and important, a section in the main article, Manga Studio, is probably the way to go. Thank you, and enjoy Hawai, Drmies (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these advices. I follow you and put several sources related the article in the talk page of Celsys. I will wait for the feedback to see how it will work. JUPITER8 (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Anne, Thank you for the kind advice at the talk page. I've found out several independent sources related to the company.

JUPITER8 (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How can I just add a new section here, without the form?

I want to ask a question here on the teahouse, but I want to be able to use the preview feature as I assemble my thoughts, but the form doesn't allow me to do that. I don't want to edit the whole darn page — there should be an "add section" option or something, but I can't see it. The form on this page seems to be broken too, as the left-hand edge goes over the navigation bar on the left of the screen, obscuring part of my text as I type it. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 00:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm....If it's a long complicated question, you could try working on it in your sandbox, with the preview, and then pasting it here when you are done. I don't seem to have the problem with the cut-off text in the form. Have you tried zooming out a little with your browser? The problem with the "add section" is that it adds the section at the bottom of the page instead of the top. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey AugurNZ. You could click "edit source" at the top and then manually create a new section (using doubled equal signs on either side of the header). If you click that edit source link you will see that there are instructions in edit mode for where a manually created new thread starts (near but not quite at the top of the page). You could also start you post just about anywhere else on Wikipedia, previewing, and once satisfied, transfer it to the form. But I agree, it's not ideal. Also, the ask a question button obscures part of a thread's header unless it's short, until the thread moves down the page. These are some of the tradeoffs of the arrangement here that is the opposite of the rest of Wikipedia, where new posts go at the bottom of the page, which is where the new section link automatically places a post. I personally am against it for a number of reasons, most importantly because in my opinion it teaches people in a way of doing something that is confounded everywhere else, so it can actively mis-instruct, but we've had the discussion on the talk page a few times and no consensus has been reached to change it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, both of you. I agree that putting the most recent post at the top is counter-intuitive and teaches new editors bad habits which, for a page designed to assist new editors, is probably not ideal. Going off to another page to create my question then pasting it here when complete is a solution, sure, but as you say, not a very good one either. As for editing the whole page just to get a new section, that is fraught with problems too, such as the higher risk of causing an {{edit conflict}}.

Now that this new section has been created, I might as well ask my question here too. I am in the process of creating my first new article on Wikipedia, using the WikiProject Disability Sandbox, as the article is going to be disability-related. My article has stalled at the very first citation, as the citation, verifiability and notability rules here are so complex. My first citation was to be from this page which cites the current NZ Minister of Disability Issues, Tariana Turia. The problem is I have no idea how to format the citation, being that I want to quote the Minister, "as cited in..." but the author's name is a company name (Core Communications Ltd), and it is all a bit confusing. I understand that this is a "press release" so it may not meet Wikipedia's stringent rules as a reliable source anyway, even though the press release has been picked up by CCS Disability Action (a frontline support and services organisation with 16 branches throughout New Zealand), Scoop (New Zealand's leading news resource for news-makers and the people that influence the news, as opposed to a news site for "news consumers"), and HealthPages (a leading online reference resource used by those within the wider health industry in NZ and the general public). To me, this all lends credence to the citation, but I have no experience with Wikipedia's policies on such things.

This is only the first citation that I plan to add to my new article. I understand that for notability I need to provide many more verifiable sources. Any help and advice would be appreciated. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 03:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding the press release to your article is okay, but if your topic is the festival it is promoting it doesn't help in establishing notability. The festival will have to have been written about by independent journalists and other authors, reporting and/or reviewing the event. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Anne. Can you explain why the press release is considered deficient? It is not a press release from the festival organizers themselves. The source cites a Minister of the Crown (Hon Tariana Turia), and a representative of the venue (Martin Sutcliffe), along with the festival organiser (Paula Crimmens). It seems to be balanced and neutral. What is so bad about this source that "it doesn't help in establishing notability" of itself? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 04:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

AugurNZ, no one said that the press release is "deficient". It is a well written professional press release. Instead, the problem is that it is not independent. The press release was issued by Core Communications Ltd., a public relations firm based in New Zealand. Even if the festival organizers did not issue it themselves, it was issued on their behalf by these capable PR professionals. According to our standards, it can't be used to establish notability, as we require coverage in fully independent sources. Here is a possible source, though I don't know if Voxy is a reliable NZ news source. Perhaps you do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen, but the link you provided is to another copy of the exact same press release, which was apparently picked up by Fuseworks, a news aggregator, and in turn by Voxy, a crowd-sourced news publisher. That is often how news is disseminated here in NZ. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 05:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights into contemporary online news distribution in New Zealand, AugurNZ. I will try to keep that in mind when examining New Zealand news sources in the future. My guess is that you are quite familiar with New Zealand's mainstream newspapers, magazines and broadcast journalism outlets. You know, the ones with professional editors and fact checkers? If none of them covered this festival, then it isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards. That's how we roll. That's how we maintain our standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just daft! If an article is widely publicised and picked up by a wide variety of reputable organizations, and re-published by them, then who cares that it wasn't originally published by the so-called mainstream media? To me, this smacks of blatant elitism. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 05:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

AugurNZ, we expect professional editorial control, fact checking and an established reputation for accuracy. Many "alternative" sources meet that standard. Calling our notability standards, established by consensus established by thousands of active editors over many years, "daft" is an interesting approach. You can study the matter, and understand and accept the clear rationale behind it; or, you can lobby to have the General notability guideline changed to your preference; or, you can give up encyclopedia editing; or, you can start a new encyclopedia of your own. Call it "Not-daft-cyclopedia,com" if you will, and assemble a team to write millions of articles better than Wikipedia's articles. I hope that you will choose the first of my options. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I must say, this will make an interesting case study for my paper for the upcoming Wikimedia Diversity Conference. So very often disability issues are ignored by the so-called mainstream media anyway. When we try to address this inequality on Wikipedia by providing articles about diversity issues, that same bias is cited and supported in Wikipedia's own policies. That said, perhaps your suggestion to "lobby to have the General notability guideline changed" could be a subject for discussion at the conference. Thanks for that. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 06:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

AugurNZ, my wife of 32 years is profoundly deaf, and one of my sons, now 23, was born with Sotos Syndrome, a disabling condition that requires constant attention and supervision from his parents. I first met my wife in the context of my role in expanding deaf services in an urban hospital setting as a telecommunications professional. I deal with disability issues every single day of my life and have for decades.Be sure to mention that in your diversity conference report. I am 100% committed to correcting Wikipedia's Systemic bias, but only in full compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am convinced that this is the path to excellent coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Cullen328, thanks for that clarification, and thanks a lot for linking me to the Systemic bias page, which nicely summarizes what I was trying to say above. I have added this as something I would like to hear more about at the upcoming Wikimedia Diversity Conference. Thanks also to all those who contributed to this discussion. I have been able to locate more reliable sources to support a claim of "notability" for this festival, and work is proceeding on the article in the WikiProject Disability Sandbox. Collaboration on the article is invited and encouraged. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How to spot a troll

Recently due to my lack of ability of identifying trolls I got into trouble, therefore to avoid such troubles I want deeper knowledge about trolls. How can I identify them and consequently don't feed them? What's the difference between trolling and vandalism? Sohambanerjee1998 08:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sohambanerjee1998, see meta:What is a troll? and Wikipedia:Vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, thanks I am a CVUA student therefore already read Wikipedia:Vandalism, meta:What is a troll and have a fair idea of what a troll is but how to identify one is the main query of mine. Thanks for the reply though. Sohambanerjee1998 12:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If someone looks like a troll, behaves like a troll, and tastes like a troll, he or she is most likely a troll. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Does this thing of the It's a duck apply here? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 12:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I usually try to tell the difference by seeing what the person's goal was. If they were trying to make people mad, or if they seem to think that they're clever, they're a troll. At least, that's my view of it. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Now I am in a pretty sticky situation. I can't describe the scenario I was in (which was darn confusing) because of some restrictions. I cannot reveal anymore than this as it might lead to block. Thanks anyway guys. Looks like the best thing to do when your confused about a troll, leave him alone or ignore him. Best, Sohambanerjee1998 17:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The best advice is, whether someone is a) a troll whose sole purpose is to mess with you and ruin your day or b) a person who isn't trolling, but though well intentioned, is just impossible to work with because of some personality issue; it doesn't really matter. It's best to just disengage and move on to something else. --Jayron32 17:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes goddamn that troll ruined my day in the worst possible manner. Plus I am just cramping under the load of both Wiki-work (1 DYK, 2 Articles and one article in the sandbox, CVUA) and Real life. So I have lot of matters to concentrate on instead of that @#$&^!. Sohambanerjee1998 17:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sohambanerjee1998, focus on the content and not in attempting to identify a label. A troll is someone who's sole purpose is disruption for no other purpose than creating havoc. While the use of the term may seem appropriate, it could also be seen as name calling. Best not to use terms such as that unless you feel you have enough evidence for an AN/I complaint seeking intervention. For that, you need not have specific reason to assume their reason for being here as long as you can demonstrate they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I suggest seeking further advice from a administrator.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Mark, I agree with you fully but the thing I went through left a deep scar that would heal with time and therefore I have appointed time as my physician and have moved on. The trouble in which I got involved in included another user who does not want to talk about it and my discussion of the incident might offend the user. Thanks Sohambanerjee1998 16:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

cant we create a page about a person or group of people ?

I have created the page for my training batch of company.

I received the following comment. Please advise me on this.

Speedy deletion nomination of TCS ILP TVM T33 Group[edit source]

""A tag has been placed on TCS ILP TVM T33 Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ...William 23:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)"" -- சிவா மூர்த்தி (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In the message which you received there are a number of links. Have you followed them? If there is something specific that you don't understand, please feel free to ask another question. - David Biddulph (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

posting

My museum was listed on your museum listing but I noticed it was removed. I am trying to put it back.96.41.124.189 (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm Abigail and will be investigating your issue.

I reviewed this page which had the revision and could conclude that the posting you made was not very relevant to the article's original purpose, and it was a bit opinionated in itself.

Other Teahouse members may inquire about this, so feel free to take all of our findings into account. We apologize your addition was removed and we hope you continue to edit in the future.

--A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 22:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You added "it is fun and creative place to learn about how Asian history became part of American history", which is promotional language. This encyclopedia is written from the neutral point of view, so that's why that language was removed. You also included an external link within the body of the list, which is not accepted practice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The eclipsing binary Algol

The current version about the history of Algol states

"The association of Algol ... "STRONGLY SUGGESTS" ... [5] ... still NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE ... [6]. ... period of 2.850 day ... "CONJECTURED" [7]"

Paper [5, JAVSO] based on mythology "STRONGLY SUGGESTS", while paper [6, Sky & Telescope] based on culture and etymology gives "NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE". I can not understand, why, after all this, the papers based on statistical, astrophysical and astronomical tests [7, CAJ, 8 ApJ] are described with the word "CONJECTURED"82.181.158.39 (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, 82.181. It is clear you are talking about the article Algol, but I have no idea what the point is that you are making: the word "conjectured" does not appear in the article as far as I can see. In any case, discussions about a particular article are usually best placed on the article's talk page, here Talk:Algol. --ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The word conjectured was boldly removed by recent edit from the poster of the question: [2]. RudolfRed (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have some info on submarine ssn595 on board 69 to 72184.8.200.114 (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

2 Westpacs 1 with seal team let off Vietnam184.8.200.114 (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia which anybody may edit, so if you can improve an article you are encouraged to do so. However, ideally everything in Wikipedia should be referenced to a reliable published source (so that any reader in a day or a month or a year or ten years) can verify that what is in the article is supported. For this reason, personal recollections and unpublished documents are not acceptable as sources for information. --ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure i did something wrong!

Hi, I have posted two questions in the past and gotten good feed back and information so I am posting again.

My problem is that I wrote and article on James Hancock, the developer of the Mobile Trauma Bay. However that was rejected. Based on the feedback i realized it would be better to make the article about the MTB rather than Hancock. So rather than started a new article from scratch, I changed the title from JL Hancock to MTB. I then rewrote the text in the same box.

So the problems are 1-that I can't get to my article when I click on my sandbox. and 2-that I am worried my article is not where i want it to be (i just want to create a draft, keep editing until its in better form.

the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mobile_Trauma_Bay

Anything you can say to help me better organize the way I am going about this article would be great. Thanks in advance, GMarin 04:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrh246 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Lrh246. I've changed your sandbox so that you can reach your article from there. About the draft article, it's okay to put a draft on the Articles for Creation space. You can keep improving the article, and submit when you are ready (It's not submitted for review yet, and you can still edit it while it's being reviewed). Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 05:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Lilyriva/sandbox is a redirect. See Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects for how to edit it, for example to replace the redirect with another draft. You can also create multiple sandboxes. They are just a form of user subpages. See Wikipedia:Subpages. Click "Contributions" at top of any page to see the pages you have edited. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

speedy deletion?

Hello, Teahouse-

I created an article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lit_Camp that was flagged for speedy deletion.

First let me say that I would not have volunteered my time to deal with wiki syntax, gather the links/content, and put this page together if I weren't convinced that what I was working on is important/has historical significance/belongs in the encyclopedia.

I have responded to the deletion message on the talk page, per the instructions, but I also wanted to check in here to ask for advice, as I realize that (as a relative newcomer), I may have inadvertently violated some standard. If you have a moment to clarify this (to me) confusing situation, I would appreciate it.

Thank you. MildredTheGrey (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Mildred, welcome (back) to the Teahouse! Tagging it for speedy deletion might have been a little over-harsh, but I do see where the tagger is coming from. As far as the promotional tag goes, there is some language that could be considered promotional in tone, but the bigger problem with that is probably the external links scattered throughout the article; according to Wikipedia's policy on such things, external links should almost never appear in the body of the article, only in the external links and references sections. Such linking to people's private websites is usually a good indicator that the article is spam.

As for the notability concerns, well, this conference probably meets the low standard set by the A7 speedy deletion criterion, but I don share Cindamuse's concern about overall notability. While I know that you believe that the event is historically significant, and it certainly might be, you have to keep in mind that Wikipedia uses different factors to decide whether a subject is notable or not. For the most part, subjects are deemed notable based on the extent of their coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Since the organization's website is not independent, it doesn't count as a reliable source for notability considerations, which just leaves you with the HuffPost article. I'm not sure what the general consensus on the reliability of Huffington Post; my general idea is that it is favorable. But, the piece you use as a source comes from their blog section, rather than their actual main site; that changes things, as blogs are usually not considered reliable, even when it's a blog on an otherwise-reliable news site. A quick search on my part (which I imagine Cindamuse also performed) turns up nothing else that's reliable, so I have a feeling that Lit Camp might not be notable after all. Keep in mind, of course, that that's not a permanent judgement; if Lit Camp receives more coverage in major newspapers in the future, it could certainly become notable. We just have to wait until that happens before we can start writing their article. And of course, that is in no way a judgement of Lit Camp's worth or significance; it's more a function of Wikipedia's reliance on its principle of verifiability, which requires extensive prior coverage of a subject in sources for an article to be written, since otherwise, we have nothign verifiable to write about. I'm sorry if that's not the answer you were hoping for, but does that help at all? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, MildredTheGrey and welcome to the Teahouse. Let me first disclose that I live in the Napa Valley, where this event is held, but have no connection to it or knowledge of it. No one is questioning your good faith or integrity here, or your sincere belief that the topic is worthy of a Wikipedia article. The issue is whether the topic meets Wikipedia's specific Notability guidelines for a freestanding article, which require significant coverage of the topic in reliable, independent sources. When I look at the sources, I see references to the event's own website, and one Huffington Post blog entry, which appears to be a rephrasing of a press release. Has it been covered in the Napa Valley Register or any prestigious literary journals? If not, the event probably isn't yet notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Writ Keeper and Cullen. I really appreciate the time you took to address my question. There are a number of pages that I'd like to make/that I believe need to be made, and I will be informed by this conversation going forward. Lit Camp? I'll return to it in the future. Looking forward to seeing you online. MildredTheGrey (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Scrutiny on new articles while bad, older articles are nurtured

I read through the interesting discussion (below) prompted by AugurNZ's question and the thread is so long, I'll just post my thought as a separate question.

I've been very active on Wikipedia (daily editing) for about two months now, before that I sporadically edited. But now that I'm on here so much and see so many pages, I can't count the number of articles I've placed {{refimprove}} on because they have few or no references at all. At this point, it's probably reached at least 100 articles because I do it, daily. This is especially the case with articles about TV episodes or other "fan topics" which are often unsourced and border on original research.

So my question is, why, when Editors (including me) see a poorly written article with major problems, we put tag on it so it can be improved while if the article has been newly created, it typically faces a speedy delete? Why do we give 10 year-old articles, that haven't been worked on for years, a chance to improve (even with "multiple issues") but if there are problems with a new article (which is inevitable with new editors), it's just deleted? I've seen articles with tags that date back to 2009 and, four years later, the article still exists with no improvement at all. I'm not familiar with AfC but do they offer suggestions to new editors on how they can improve their article and resubmit it or does it just get a swift delete?

I think this is what frustrates new article creators because I know I come across at least a dozen articles every day that would never pass today's AfC standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

AFC drafts are only ever deleted for a few narrow reasons, the main ones being copyright violation, blatant advertising, and abandoned drafts with no edits in six months. Other than that, the drafts that aren't accepted are declined with a message giving suggestions for improvement. I don't really know what to say with regards to the rest of your question, other than to say that a lot of editors monitor recent changes, and it's altogether easier to find and deal with new bad articles than old ones. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Liz and thanks for asking a great question. The first thing that I want to say is that deletion policy does not discriminate in any way based on the age of the article. Any article is subject to a speedy, a prod, or an AfD nomination, whether it is ten minutes old or ten years old. That being said, new articles, which flow in to Wikipedia in a constant and somewhat predicable fashion, are subject to more scrutiny than older articles. Since we have over 4.2 million existing articles, those editors interested in keeping garbage off the encyclopedia often gravitate toward evaluating new articles, since the percentage of problematic material there is so high. I am quite active at AfD, where careful analysis of borderline cases is common. It is common there to look at articles of all ages, and we evaluate them all by the same standards. I encourage you and other editors to participate in those debates whenever you have time and interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Cullen has hit the point exactly; there are a number of gatekeepers that systematically scrutinise new articles, at New Page Review and Articles for Creation. Older articles get spotted purely by chance and, often, by editors that have other priorities. Personally I make a judgement on the best solution for an unsourced/non-notable subject - either tag it (if I think someone with more time and expertise may be able to improve it), or propose for speedy deletion (if it meets one of the criteria), or PROD it (if there's no hope, but it doesn't meet an SD criteria), or propose a merger to another article (or be bold and redirect it) ...or at last resort, raise at Articles for Deletion discussion. So there's a number of options, if you fancy doing some housekeeping.

Unfortunately with the 'fancruft' there are often a lot of fans who will fight to keep an article regardless of its merits. Wikipedia and its rules are made up by its participants so with these I often have to hold up my hands and walk away very slowly ;) Sionk (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liz. That is a great question. May I suggest that if you find old articles that shouldn't really exist, you use PROD templates? These put a notice on the page that say effectively "if no-one objects, this article will be deleted in 7 days". It's a drama-free way to eliminate bad articles that, quite simply, nobody cares about any more. --LukeSurl^{t c} 10:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Which can be reliable sources for big retail company?

Dear Editor,

Hope you are well ,

could you please help us with some issue. I'm brand manager of company Z&A Ltd in Armenia,which is in the sphere of fashion and representative of many brands in Armenia and its outside. We have sent request to wikipedia team to add our company and have received this kind of answer below.So as i understood we must have referances from the famous mdeia drives in Armenia,for example from independent magazines or sites,and we can't refer any information to wikipedia. For example i wrote that "Z&A Ltd is representative of Burberry in Armenia and put refer BURBERRY to wikipedia's Burberry"

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Z%26A_stores es sitey mti tes.95.140.195.155 (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your understanding is accurate, but your example ~~does~~ does not represent what is considered a reliable source. Burberry has a financial relationship with the company, and it cannot be considered reliable because a partnership, contract, or agreement between companies is not indicative of notability. Please try to find in-depth coverage of the company in reliable sources, such as magazines, news articles, books, or interviews. I would also advise removing the many external links to company pages on the article and removing the company's Facebook page per our guidelines on external links. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that JethroBT may have intended to say "... does not represent ..." - David Biddulph (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

So as i undesrtood as referance i must add some links to independent magazines,news articles and other info sources instead of putting refernace to official web sites of companies?

Must i also remove refers to wikipedia? for example if under the "Represented brands description" i have wrote "BURBERRY-is a British luxury fashion house, distributing clothing and fashion accessories and licensing fragrances" i must remove refer to wikipedia's Burberry article from name "BURBERRY"? and instead of it must i put refer to any magazine to showing info about Burberry? Can i do not refer to any source at all in this case and add only independent sources for company Z&A ?95.140.195.155 (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Change Username

Hi everyone, I just wanted to know what's the process to change my username and if my contributions will be still under my new username or under the former? Thanks... Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 13:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Miss Bono! To change your username, it depends on if the name is already taken or if it isn't. If it isn't, you can go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and fill out the form. If you're taking the name of an old editor, you can go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. As long as the new name isn't appropriate, you should be allowed to change it, and all your contributions from your old account name will stay. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 13:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Miss Bono, can I add that WP:RENAME might be of some use, though I hope you decide to keep your username :) Flat Out let's discuss it 13:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 13:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"As long as the new name isn't appropriate", öBrambleberry, I think you meant "inappropriate". By the way, Miss Bono, the advice above is right. I changed my name last month and it took about a week. My username had been "taken" but never used (zero edits) so a notice was put on the User Page, no one contested the name change and my account was switched over. Of course, it's much simpler if you are choosing a username which is freely available. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Liz. I was doing about 80 other things when I wrote that. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 13:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeated addition of nonexistent category

Hi there. An IP editor, 50.8.37.64, is adding a redlinked category to many articles. The category seems unlikely to me ever to exist, but I've been surprised about such things before. It's Category:The '90s Are All That. What's the best course of action? In similar cases, do people remove the links or let them stand, and so on? Thanks in advance. DoorsAjar (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that someone's reported the user to AIV, but I'd still love to get your input. DoorsAjar (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi DoorsAjar! Definitely remove any redlinked categories per our WP:CATEGORY guideline: "An article should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it. Either the category should be created, or else the link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I did read that guideline, but it left me uncertain. Should I wait in case the category is created soon? Ask the editor in question to create it? I don't even know that this is a good or necessary category, but it's in an area with which I'm unfamiliar. I didn't want to be in a situation where I removed all the links and then had the editor complain that s/he had been just about to create the category. Do you see what I mean? DoorsAjar (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

In these cases, I use my judgment. If it's an experienced editor adding redlinked categories I ask them what's up. If it's a new/unregistered editor creating these cats I remove them and place a note asking them to create a category first if the category should exist (which is very rare). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That helps. Thanks very much! DoorsAjar (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Another Huge Mistake

I was editing A Little Bit of Mambo and when I saved, the whole Infobox album was gone. Can someone fix it? IGotProof (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello IGotProof. No worries. It has been fixed already.--Charles (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering adding a page for a plasma experiment...

I work on a plasma experiment at Columbia University that's been serving as a test-bed for a lot of diagnostic techniques which then move on to bigger machines like DIII-D_(fusion_reactor). Most of the citations about it, however, come from doctoral dissertations and other publications written by people working on the experiment, which might be considered a bias--and my own position might be seen as a conflict of interest. Any outside opinions on this?

Exacerangutan (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To answer your question, dissertations are common as sources as long as they have been peer reviewed. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. As far as any bias you may have, that is something we all have to deal with, but the main issue would be conflict of interest. It would be best to review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to see if there is reason to be concerned with how close you are to the subject itself. Thanks and happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Exacerangutan, and welcome to the Teahouse. The experiment would only meet Wikipedia's notability standards if it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The sources you describe are not independent, as they are written by the researchers themselves. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Creating a person page for oneself

Is it OK to create a page for oneself if other wiki pages or sites like IMDB already list me as an individual? It is somewhat frustrating not to be able to have my own entry when most of my colleagues have theirs. If it is unacceptable to create one's own entry, who should one ask?

Thanks for your help. SukeyP (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It is stongly discouraged. See WP:AUTOBIO for guidance. If you are notable, then you should ask someone else to create the article for you at WP:RA. RudolfRed (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Creating articles about yourself is highly discouraged on Wikipedia. See WP:COISELF. The general rule of thumb has been, if a subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, someone else will create it eventually. However, there is also the BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) guidelines from WP:BLPEDIT that show some leniency. I would say it is best to follow these policies and guidelines as well as the one mentioned above (Wikipedia:Autobiography) in regards to creating the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. SukeyP (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing and humor

I know we have some pages devoted to humor around here, but a WP:List of jokes used on Wikipedia that collects diffs might be nice. Or is there already an existing place? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Biosthmors, and welcome to the always humorous Teahouse. I think WP:JOKE is what you are looking for. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding DYK

Why is my DYK - Template:Did you know nominations/O Heeriye not appearing where it should be Template:Did_you_know_nominations#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_September_22? Sohambanerjee1998 06:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh Solved it. Thanks, forgot that you have to add it yourself. Sohambanerjee1998 06:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)