Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 324

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 320 ← Archive 322 Archive 323 Archive 324 Archive 325 Archive 326 → Archive 330

Article page count for specified category using "magic words".

Hello from Malaysia : ) I'm trying to find some statistics on article page counts of specified categories related to my country. There use to be a tool on Wikimedia Labs but it is no longer running. Googling leads me here but I am really lost. have no idea how and where to key in these 'magic words'

Help:Category#Displaying category trees and page counts

Is there an expert who can help?

Many thanks. DC

MYMMMC (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I don't claim to be an expert, but from the help page which you linked you can count the pages in Category:WikiProject Malaysia articles by using {{PAGESINCATEGORY:WikiProject Malaysia articles}}, which renders as 28,195. At the time of writing, that is 8838, which is the 8835 pages + 3 sub-categories listed at Category:WikiProject Malaysia articles . --David Biddulph (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the reply sir! That giant sum is what I am looking for.

But I'm still somewhat lost. Where did you key in {{PAGESINCATEGORY:WikiProject Malaysia articles}} ? In the search box? The edit page? a special page?

I'm interested in finding a fast way to total up article counts in major categories of articles related to malaysia (e.g. number of Malaysian sports, culture, politics, etc.) I will also do so in other major languages relevant to my country (malay and chinese). Do you know if this method works for other languages?

Say right now, if I wish to add up articles in 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Buildings_and_structures_in_Malaysia'

what would be the step by step procedure? Sorry for the trouble.

Thanks so much again. MYMMMC (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You would be looking for Category:Buildings and structures in Malaysia which counts inaccurately 12. Ohh ok I see the issue here. Unlike what Meta:Help:Category#Count claims, it doesn't count articles in subcats. Hmm, I'd have to research when this changed. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Help:Category#Displaying category trees and page counts, as linked by the OP, makes it clear: "Each subcategory counts as one page; pages in subcategories are not counted." --David Biddulph (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@David Biddulph: Soooo Meta:Help:Category#Count is ridiculously wrong... I'll head over and fix it now then. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear all,

I've found this tool and it does what I am looking for :D

After keying in a category, it shows on the top left corner of the result section the number of pages within a specified category. Changing the depth results in more and more subcategories and more pages.

Thanks again for your help. MYMMMC (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Templates

How can one find a catalog of all templates? DawnDusk (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. All templates are listed here; I think there are about half a million of them. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Adding on, I believe Wikipedia:Template messages is the most comprehensive (and organized) directory. Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace lists messages you may leave on editor talk pages (warnings, notices, etc.). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Whoa... Half a million... Thanks. DawnDusk (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There is also a category system starting at Category:Wikipedia templates, but many templates have not been placed in a category. If you look for similar templates to a given templates then you can see whether it has a template category at the bottom. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

World Wide What?

I have noticed that infoboxes of many websites don't show www. in URL. And many browsers also lighten it (for example www. in www.wikipedia.org will be a bit dull). So should the https://www. be given importance and added there?
(note: that is actually not a link)
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 16:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, aGastya. I don't see anything in the Manual of Style about this. Many websites are set up so that the www. is optional anyway (in the sense that the URL with www. and that without it go to the same place) and in those cases I don't think it matters which you use. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
but@ColinFine; should not we use how actually it is supposed to be?
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 17:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
If you can tell what it is supposed to be, aGastya, by all means use it. I don't know how you are going to tell that. (If you mean that URL's are "supposed" to have the www. on the front, that is emphatically not the case. The parts of a URL before the domain name can be anything the domain owner chooses). --ColinFine (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully someone knows a more concrete answer, but I'm inclined to believe excluding the "www" is the norm, unless necessary. Template:Infobox company, for example, specifies that "www" should not be included. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
okay: i felt that the http://www. stuff is also important but if it is specified not to use; i won't!
thank you both!
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 04:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
As web browsers have gotten "smarter" over the years, the importance of the "http://www" stuff has declined. I wrote columns in industry trade publications back in the 1990s emphasizing the importance of accuracy in typing in web addresses correctly. Those days are over. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
For most websites the www is optional, but on Wikipedia the http:// (or other protocol) is needed. For example without the protocol Wikipedia does not recognize wikipedia.org as a link. —teb728 t c 08:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Websites in infoboxes are often given with {{URL}} where http:// is optional. The template will automatically add it but not display it whether it was given or not. {{url|http://en.wikipedia.org}} produces en.wikipedia.org. {{url|en.wikipedia.org}} produces en.wikipedia.org. My own rule of thumb about www: If the website includes www when displaying the website address inside pages then I include it. But if it makes the url line-wrap in the infobox for me then I may omit it. I ignore whether non-www is a redirect to www. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary fill-ins

What happened to the function whereby when you added an WP:Edit summary, the software automatically gave you suggestions on what to use based upon previous Edit summaries that you made in the past? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi BeenAroundAWhile is that different to the autofill feature that the browser has, because i get those suggestions as long as I haven't cleared autofill. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Used to be: I would start typing in the Edit summary and then the software would present me with a list of summaries that I made in the past beginning with the same word or letters. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You may have cleared that saved data from your browser.Flat Out let's discuss it 07:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they are remembered by your browser and not by Wikipedia. If they are cleared from your browser or you use another computer or browser then you don't get them. They work for me in Firefox. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Either your browsers autofill data has been cleaned (possibly by a "cleaner" program like CCleaner or a function of an Antivirus program) or it is because you are editing a section which starts with differnet letters and often don't auto fill unless its generic like /* History */ I'm sure your autofull will start to return as you use it like normal. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 12:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

When I Edit Any Cricketer Or Celebrity Page's Reference Links Or External Link It Reverts By robot?all thought i put only major links..example i have submitted official esp profile link of cricketer. i have submitted official ICC profile link of cricketer. i have submitted official PCB profile link of cricketer. So why They Revert By Boot ? John maxel (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse! That really is annoying isnt it... Looking at the edit you made, it seems you were doing the right thing except for twitter links. While these links may be considered helpful, if you read WP:EL you can see about what shouldn't be added. If you exclude the twitter link it shouldnt revert you anymore. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 12:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Trolling my work with incorrect info!

Hello! I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. Recently, I made a few, very well cited contributions to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptown_Funk. My contributions dealt with the "Horn Section Debate" in the "Credits and Personnel" section. However, someone keeps trolling the page and inputting information regarding the horn section that is neither cited nor true. It currently reads:

It should read:

I will change it again now. This is the third time I'm having to make these changes. Is there any way to stop these edits from being made?

Thank you for your help, Wikipedia Community!

Kmg318 Kmg318 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No, do not change it again or engage in an edit war. Discuss the issue on the article's talk page, and follow the guidance at WP:DR to resolve this. RudolfRed (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kmg318. I agree with RudolfRed and suggest you try and discuss this at Talk:Uptown Funk to get feed back for other editors working on the page. Even if we know something to be 100% true, we still need to show that it can be verified through reliable sources. You wrote in "Reinstating previous edits that were overwritten. My information is correct and cited." in this edit sum which is fine if that's what the sources say. Perhaps clarifying this on the article's talk page will help reduce the chance that the information is removed by another editor in the future. Just a suggestion.
Some other comments and advice. Referring to other editors as trolls simply because they have reverted your edits might be viewed as not "assuming good faith". Wikipedia has policies against making personal attacks and such comments might be interpreted as such. The best thing to do in such cases is often to try to find out why your edit was reverted through talk page discussion and stick to commenting on content and not on other editors. Lots of misunderstanding are cleared up through talk page discussions. Also, I've noticed that your marking almost all of your edits as "minor" when the fact is that they are really not. I suggest you take a look at "WP:MINOR#Minor edit", particularly WP:ME#When not to mark an edit as a minor edit. Knowingly and continuously marking edits as "minor" when they are not might be seen as disruptive by some and something not really conducive to collaborative editing. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Marchjuly -- Thank you so much for the advice and guidance! I am reading these articles now. Really, really appreciated! Kmg318 (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

hello <redacted> I Can Editing Wiki Article And Sorry I'm Editing Your Article.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by FERNANDO HAZARD (talk • contribs) 00:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, FERNANDO HAZARD. I'm not sure what you are asking (or why you are telling us personal facts here). I see you have been editing Persipura Jayapura. It seems a reasonable enough article, except that there is still a lot of information which is not referenced; and the references that are there would be more useful if they contained the "website" parameter, so that you could readily see what publication they came from. (This is important for distinguishing which references are reliable, and also which are independent). As a general rule, every single piece of data in an article should be individually referenced to a reliable source, and in most cases to an independent reliable source (see WP:NAMEDREF for how to use the same source more than once). --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

In this article, Longxi Township, Wenchuan County, I added the [[]] around a wikilink but they are visible on the article, whereas the other wikilinks are not. Rubbish computer (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer:, fixed it. I think it was to do with the way the text was formatted. There were a number of line breaks in the text (as if it had been cut and pasted from another document) and these meant the wiki markup wasn't recognising the brackets as being paired. Remove the line breaks and the problem goes away. Nthep (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Rubbish computer (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Changing Display/Title name

Hello! Is there any way to change the display/title name of a wiki page? There's currently a page dedicated to Edie Bornstein, however, that is her maiden name and I would like to update it to her married name, Edie Rodriguez. Any insight on how I could do this would be super helpful. Thank you!

Melissaspark 205.179.19.174 (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The mechanics of doing it are set out at Wikipedia:Moving a page. However, only registered, autoconfirmed users (users with more than ten edits and whose accounts are more than four days [actual days; 96 hours]) can move a page. A request can be made by anyone at Wikipedia:Requested moves, but please be aware that Wikipedia article are usually titled by the common name of the subject as set forth in a preponderance of reliable sources, which may not be the official or legal name of a subject. For a person, see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Multiple and changed surnames – patronymics and matronymics. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

About Wikiprojects

How to join various wikiprojects? and why there is need to join any wikiproject when you can edit nearly every article without being part of any wikiproject? What extra benefits an user or editor gets when he/she joins any Wikiproject? Please answer all questions. Thank You. --Human3015 16:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Human3015, welcome to the Teahouse. To sign up for a WikiProject, just go to a projects main page and follow the links to the members page and add your name to the list. There are not necessarily any "benefits", signing up for a Wikiproject is pretty much just declaring that you edit that subject. For example, I am a member of this Wikiproject and I edit lots of pages related to that. Wikiprojects have a talk page where you can discuss anything related to it with other members of that Wikiproject. Finally, the main page of Wikiprojects often have tasks and other things like that you can participate in. You can also put a cool little userbox on your user page :P. DangerousJXD (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @DangerousJXD: , hope you will help me further in future on different issues. Wikipedia is certainly more addictive than Facebook. :P --Human3015 00:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Super Bowl LIII

I want to know when will the Super Bowl LIII Article will be starting Because I Looked at the Dallas Morning News Website that They Will announce finalists for both Super Bowl LIII and Super Bowl LIV I Hope They Super Bowl LIII Article page will hopefully start in May and then the Super Bowl LIV Page will start later let me know when OK. Big Towel (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Big Towel, the articles will probably be created when there is enough information to start with and the whole thing isn't just speculation about where and when. You'll just have to keep your eyes open for the articles. Nthep (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Big Towel, according to Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson, in a live performance at DAR Constitution Hall last month, there will not be a Super Bowl LIII. Specifically, "there won't be a Super Bowl L. Can you imagine the marketers?". at that point, they'll go to Super Bowl 50. RobSVA (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well they haven't been talking About Super bowl LIII Because of the Adrian Peterson Case. To Cause this problem. There should be some finalists in may. Big plate (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Why Can't I Create New Future Sports Articles

Mrx Said if I was disruptive I Would be banned from editing But I Am Leaving On Sunday Night Big plate (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Big plate. As a general rule, Wikipedia is very conservative about articles about future events. It would be foolish to create an article about the 2028 U.S. presidential election, or the 2032 Notre Dame football season, since nothing of value can be said about such future events. On the other hand, we can have a useful article about the 2016 presidential election since reliable sources already discuss it in great detail, and even the next Super Bowl in 2016 since the date and venue are set, though no one has any good idea at this time which teams will play. So, it is the extent of coverage in reliable sources that determines whether we should have an article. We require very solid, very significant coverage to create an article about a future event. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

World Wide Why?

Why is this confusing?
I am asking this question aGain as the last time: discussion had no good solution as the opinions of host were slightly different. And David got annoyed by my edits!
So now please just answer in yes or no: are the following correct for URL template
1 https://www.domain.com
2 https://domain.com
3 www.domain.com
4 domaim.com
thank you in advance
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 04:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

As was said in the answers you received previously, it isn't a simple yes or no for all cases. Your question last time round didn't specifically refer to the url template; some of the answers referred to using the template, and some referred to links provided without using the url template, as in your examples above.
Some of the previous discussion was whether the "www" is necessary, and the answer is that it usually isn't necessary. Advice at {{Infobox company}} is "Do not include the leading www. unless the URL will not resolve without it." At the time of writing one example of a url that doesn't work without the "www" is horr.co.uk (which currently gives a 500 server error), whereas www.horr.co.uk does work. This server error may be corrected soon, of course, as it has been pointed out to the organization concerned. The example of a change to which I objected was when you changed twitter.com to www.twitter.com; in this case if you follow the link including the "www" it gets you to somewhere that displays (in the address line of my browser at least) as https://twitter.com without the "www", so it was a pointless edit (and against the advice in the previous answers) to add "www" to the link.
The presence or absence of the "www" is different from the presence or absence of the "https://". When used without the url template the absence of the "https://" stops the string being treated as a url link, as you can see in the examples in your question.
One further point is that [//twitter.com] works (//twitter.com) without the https: . In this case the connection will work with the currently used protocol, whether that be http or https.
I hope that things are now clearer for you. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay: now that is clear!


aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 05:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Question for the Teahouse hosts

Hi Teahouse hosts,

  • When I co-managed the Signpost, one of my last projects was to run a survey of Signpost editors. We discovered that most of our editors are long-term Wikipedians. I think it would help new contributors to see the wider world of Wikipedia if they subscribe to the Signpost. Is this something you can encourage as a group, and how else do you think new users can be made aware of the larger world of Wikipedia?
  • I would like to let you know that I am staring work on two videos that may be helpful to new editors. The first video will be a short introduction to VisualEditor. The second will be a 30 to 60 minute video that is aimed at students in the Wikipedia Education Program but may also be of interest to new users who have decided for themselves that they want a relatively thorough introduction to how Wikipedia works. If you have suggestions for content you can post them on my talk page.

Thank you,

--Pine✉ 03:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pine. I subscribe to the Signpost (Wikipedia's general newsletter), read every issue, and encourage every committed editor to do so. But the Teahouse isn't set up for advocacy or promotion of any kind. Our sole mission (as I see it) is to welcome new or inexperienced editors, and to answer their good faith questions about editing. Nothing more, nothing less. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

the knowledge graph

can an experienced Wikipedia user like an administrator or high ranked user be able to contribute any information to the knowledge graph or does anyone thats registered or not have any capability to do so or is it just the people that work for google that does most of the work and contributions to the knowledge graph?Studentcollege (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Studentcollege: That's basically what Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 322#knowledge graph was about. Google's Knowledge Graphs are made by Google's software. Their employees code the software but I guess they don't manually create or make changes to individual Knowledge Graphs. That would probably require too much paid manpower and go against their core idea of presenting search results. We have no inside knowledge or control over what they do. A Knowledge Graph often but not always contains an excerpt from the lead of a Wikipedia article. If the quoted part of the article is edited then Google may update their Knowledge Graph at a later time, but edits should not be made to try to affect Google. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to say but can the administrator or a high ranked Wikipedia user notify google to make a knowledge graph about a famous person that a registered user has created or will google let the Wikipedia user know that it will take some time for the knowledge graph to be completed?Studentcollege (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Human Wikipedians have no communication with human Google employees about such matters, Studentcollege. It is handled entirely by Google's software bots crawling the web, and rating Wikipedia highly as a source. Our licensing allows them to freely repackage our content as they see fit, as long as they credit us. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
what does googles software bots mean?Studentcollege (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Studentcollege: See Googlebot and Web crawler. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I have two more questions in regards to the knowledge graph what does the feedback link at the bottom of the knowledge graph mean and if a knowledge graph has a lot of credentials does that mean that particular famous person is very well known?Studentcollege (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Studentcollege: Click the feedback link to see what it does. You don't have to ask about everything. We have no inside knowledge of how Google processes the feedback. I'm not sure what you mean by credentials but I don't know whether there is any correlation between the fame of a person and the number of fields in their Knowledge Graph. It's presumably made by software and not people so the time to add many fields is not an issue. I guess it's just a question of which information Google can gather automatically in a way their software trusts enough to put in a field. If a person is very famous then there will usually be more websites writing about them and maybe a better chance that Google can gather what they want. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
when i said credentials i was talking about that famous persons type of work and what other types of work that particular person is well known for.Studentcollege (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Studentcollege: It has been pointed out to you previously that your tedious questions having little to nothing to do with editing Wikipedia were approaching the point of being disruptive. Well, with this last obsession over Google, something that has NO relationship with editing Wikipedia whatsoever, you have passed the tipping point and are now being disruptive. I'll make a deal with you: Go make an edit and make your next question about the edit you made. Anything less than that and I am afraid I will be forced to approach an administrator and request you be blocked for lack of competence and disruption. John from Idegon (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter when i mentioned the word credentials on my previous post I was referring to that famous persons type of work and what other types of occupations that particular person is well known for.Studentcollege (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The request has been made politely over and over, Studentcollege, and you have not complied. Your repetitive questions are disruptive. Stop now, or experienced editors will have to request a block on your account. STOP! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Cullen I sincerely apologize and I will NEVER ask repetitive questions about the same topic ever again. I also have received all the answers that i have been looking for and for all your kind responses I'am extremely happy and grateful for it.Studentcollege (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Bullying by another editor? Subjective?

Hello, I have been stalked and bullied by a member Epeefleche ever since I ADDED (note: not deleted, but ADDED) twice as much content to a page that he had contributed to. Much of the links to topics are to other Wikipedia pages; not so much a sources, but as links to show a cohesive story. An example is that from the main page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italians_of_Ethiopia I added a number of external sources, but also linked to Wikipedia pages, such as this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisk_of_Axum since it has to do with Mussolini stealing said Obelisk, and then the Italian Government sending it back/repatriating it. I used the picture from that page, as well as some text and linked to it. But before I could even grab an external link (even though I really shouldn't have to...since it's all there on the Wikipedia page) the user Epeefleche undid all my work (hours worth) and gave me a "warning" on my talk page that I could be banned from editing if I did not "cite my sources". How is this possible? Nothing I am putting up is my own opnion, conjecture or speculation...it's fact and just happens to be captured on other Wikipedia pages that I can link to for support/to tell a cohesive story. What can I do to sto this? Who can I get involved to mediate? thanks so much TrinacrialucenteTrinacrialucente (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Trinacrialucente. Please take a deep breath, sit down, and have a relaxing cup of tea before making further accusations that an experienced editor like Epeefleche is "stalking" and "bullying" you. The first thing that you must realize is that one Wikipedia article is never a reliable source for a statement in another Wikipedia article. Never, ever ever. That's because Wikipedia can be freely edited by anyone, and though our accuracy in general is high, any given article at any time may contain false information or vandalism, either obvious or subtle. A well-written Wikipedia article contains references to actual reliable sources. If you actually read such sources, and if they support the content you want to add to the other article, feel free to cite them. But please never cite Wikipedia itself. And please do not accuse editors who enforce well-established policies of stalking and bullying. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly do both as I have been doing (linking to the Wikipedia page AND using the sources therein). but rather than undoing my work before I have a chance to hit submit, instead of simply writing [citation needed] would that not be a better way to handle this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 05:48, 27 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Every editor (including you and Epeefleche) has the right to revert if they sincerely believe that another editor's additions are problematic. My personal policy is to reference any substantive addition I make to, at least, the URL of a reliable source, and then transform it into a complete reference within a few minutes. Accordingly, I find that a very small percentage of my edits are reverted, saving me much heartburn. The primary burden for proper referencing is on you, whenever you add content. Those are the facts of life here on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Another fact of life here on Wikipedia is that personal attacks like this one are totally unacceptable. We have a policy of No personal attacks. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

176.12.107.139 (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC) This refers to a copyright issue with my article Alfred Edwin Jones. I have rewritten the sections which were at issue. How do I submit the corrected article for acceptance. At the moment the offending sections were removed.? Do I go back into my Sandbox? But the sections have also been removed from it? How to proceed? 176.12.107.139 (talk) I am EamonX1 EamonX1 (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, EamonX1. Discussion on your talk page indicates that you were trying to get the copyrighted text released by the copyright holder. Is that still the case? Do they know that they are releasing their material for free use by anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any purpose including commercial use? Or are you saying that your draft has been completely rewritten to eliminate all previously copyrighted material? You must be sure that all copyrighted content is gone. Once a copyright violation has been detected, it is essential to be crystal clear about the current status of the draft article. Please clarify. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Usage of fields in an infobox

Which fields should be used in an infobox?
Key People, CEO, President, Chairman etc. If the people named in Key people are the CEO, President or Chairman?
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 04:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Acagastya. It depends entirely what reliable sources say about the leadership of the company, and zero about any blank field in the infobox. Usually (but not always), the best coverage will be about the CEO of modern corporations. Summarize the coverage in reliable sources and pay no attention to blank fields not discussed in reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Cullen328: direct example: Amazon.com CEO, Chairman and President (and founder as well): the person is Jeff Bezos. So it is to be entered in Key people or in other fields?
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 07:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Acagastya, Jeff Bezos is the founder, president, chairman and CEO of that highly notable company. What the heck are you asking about in such a case? Use him in the most important fields of the infobox, but do not be excessive about it. No need to mention that he is the "senior janitor" of the company. What's the problem here? Just be logical and reasonable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
So @Cullen328; Jeff Bezos should be named in Key people or separately in CEO Chairman as well as President?

Because one user said it is better to keep it all in one line under Key people over here.
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 08:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand the other editor's point in this case. Why bother to list him on multiple lines? He is one person, not three or four people with the same name. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay! got it
I asked it because I thought CEO field would suit better. And now I know it isn't.
thank you!
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 11:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have "You've got mail?"

Does Wikipedia have an "alert" system? Responding to an individual post on a talk page often fails to continue a thread if some time has elapsed. And project talk pages for science and technology appear seldom used. How can one elicit a response to an individual post, and from an army of project members? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@TBR-qed: For an individual you can use the ping template like so: "{{ping|name of user you pinged}}", which will give a notification like the one you gor from me doing this message. If you want to have discussion with a group, they can add a page to their watchlist by clicking the star and then see on their watchlist when there is a change. Finally, you can post on someone's talkpage to inform them of stuff that they've expressed an interest in. So in summary, ping or post on the talkpage of someone you want to talk to as an individual, and post a talk page those project members are watching to gather their attention. Banak (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
An easy way to notify them on their talkpage is by using {{talkback}}, I'll leave an example on your talkpage. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Primary versus Secondary Sourcing

The articles I'm most interested in contributing to are among the most contentious (to put it mildly) right now. Before I make an edit (being bold has already been forbidden to me on one article by a wikilawering editor!), I want to have all my ducks in a row. One of the greatest areas of disagreement in these articles centeres around 'primary and secondary' sources as regards court rulings. My understanding of the guideline on primary, secondary, tertiary sources is that it's perfectly permissible to quote a court order and to consider it a valid source. There's considerable resistance to that from some editors, demanding secondary sourcing without making clear just how, exactly, the secondary source is somehow needed. It's very puzzling. And contentious. So - if a court rules 'x' and I cite that court ruling, I already know I'll be reverted and ordered to get a proper secondary source...of the court ruling? An interpretation of the ruling? Doesn't that conflict with NPOV guidelines? Then again, I've never understood the whole 2=2=4 except on Wikipedia if verifiable sources says it doesn't thing, either. Help!Pauci leonum (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Pauci leonum. I expect it depends critically on what the specific statement is that your source supports. If the statement is limited to "court X ruled Y" then (in my personal, non-expert view) the court documentation should be appropriate - but not for anything beyond that. See WP:PRIMARY, which says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge... Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." I look forward to seeing what more experienced voices have to say on this topic... --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Think of it this way, Pauci leonum: The world's courts issue massive numbers of rulings every single day. Every ruling is in writing and increasingly they are online. The vast majority are trivial and routine, while a tiny percentage are momentous and worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. Major corporations have legal departments with dozens or hundreds of lawyers on staff, dealing with a flood of rulings. An individual Wikipedia editor with a specific interest in some matter may consider an individual court ruling "very important" while everyone else says "ho hum". How do we separate the wheat from the chaff? The answer is whether or not the court ruling has received significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Lacking such coverage, individual court rulings should be disregarded. Trying to impute significance to such rulings in the absence of such coverage is original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Written court opinions can be both a primary and a secondary source. They are a primary source for the findings of the court; quotations or paraphrases (as the situation may call for) are just fine in describing the court's view, when there is no need to interpret the opinion. Additionally, court opinions often summarize the facts surrounding a case, and as such can make good secondary sources--but they are only in neutral insofar as they summarize facts that both sides agree on.Knight of Truth (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Pauci leonum, t o clarify a little further, final decisions of highest level courts of appeal are authoritative sources for the state of the law in that jurisdiction, and are also secondary sources for there facts of the case and the legal arguments, to the extent that they discuss them in their decisions. That does't show the Absolute Truth, but it does show what the court thinks the truth of the matter is. As for notability, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the US, and corresponding courts in other jurisdictions, are usuallu considered individually notable, and suitable article topics. Th decisions of lower level courts usually are not, unless there is some special reason (such a being the recognized leading case, or by being itself a subject of historical importance, or a subject of press discussion that is not covered in a review by a higher court or better handled in an article on the underlying case). DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
First of all, thanks to everyone for the answers. I think Cullen328 put their finger on the area of disagreement. I still don't understand why it's wrong to cite (without giving any personal opinion) the relevant decision. Indeed, I should think citing the actual court decision, as published, is a higher-quality source than turning to a secondary source which may or may not be providing the entire decision or may have colored it. I should add that without the court's decision, the entire article falls to pieces, and that may be the one and only thing the editors agree on, so it's not a ho-hum, trivial, nobody else cares matter - a real danger and I'm glad Cullen328 mentioned it. Again, thanks to everyone. I'm just going to hold off a while longer before I edit anything, the more time I invest in learning the ropes around here, the more I am reminded of the old joke about the position wanted ad: Wanted: Expert under 30 years of age with 40 years experience, three post-graduate degrees, hundreds of thousands of published lines and the youth and flexibility to see all their work torn to shreds. I came back to Wikipedia after reading all the accounts of how many other new editors were leaving in droves and the attempts to change that. I do think this Teahouse is a very good step in that direction.Pauci leonum (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

CFO?

is CFO CTO and CCO unknown fields in infobox of a dot-com website?
And if they are: how to add those fields?
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 05:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, aGastya. You can see what fields are accepted in a template (such as an infobox) by going to the page that defines the template, such as Template:infobox company. If a field is not there, you cannot use it. In principle, you may edit a template to add a new field, but for templates that are widely used, it is strongly recommended that you discuss the change first on the template talk page (eg Template talk:infobox company). --ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

My first article

Myself Ankush 89 (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC), Hello to every well wisher wikipedian, I have created a draft named 'Shree Gurukul Peeth, Shri Kshetra Trimbakeshwar, which is a religious place for Hindu devotees, When my article will get namespace? I have provided proper reference for it Ankush 89 (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ankush 89. You're talking about the draft Draft:Shree Gurukul Peeth, Shree Kshetra Trimbakeshwar, yes? The answer to your main question is that it will almost certainly not get moved to article space until you have had it reviewed: you can request a review by editing it to insert {{submit}} at the beginning of the article. But please do not do so, because it is not ready for review.
I'm afraid your referencing is not adequate. You have put in two references, but it is unclear what they are. Is the first one a book? What does the title mean? Is "Dindori" the publisher? How can we tell whether it is a reliable source? The second one appears to be a website which is not independent of the subject (but I may be wrong). Furthermore, only two statements in the draft are referenced. As a basic guideline, every single statement in an article should be individually referenced to a reliable published source. (It is acceptable to reference the same source multiple times, but each statement that is supported by the source should reference it). Please see referencing for beginners.
There are other problems too, about language. The title of the draft article is confusing to me, and I suspect to most people who are not familiar with India: what is the relationship of the names before and after the comma? The article doesn't say anything at all about Shree Gurukul Peeth (though it mentions Shree Gurupeeth in passing, which might be the same?) I have no idea what is the relationship between this article and Trimbakeshwar Shiva Temple (which you link to).
It is also not written in a neutral tone: the word "marvellous" should almost never occur in any Wikipedia article, unless it is directly quoting a reliable published source unconnected with the subject. So if you can find a book from a reputable publisher, or a major newspaper, which says that the temple is a marvellous utilizer of Vastu Shastra, then the article can contain that statement, referenced to that source; but if not, the article needs to say something neutral, such as "the temple is designed according to the principles of Vastu Shastra" - but even this fact needs to be referenced to a reliable published source.
Well done for creating your draft in Draft: space, so that you have the space to work on it; but it needs a lot of work. If you haven't already read your first article, I suggest you do so. --ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Translating an article from English to another language.

Hi, I would like to ask something about translating articles from english to other languages. If the article exists in the other language but it's quality is much lower than the English article what should I do? Should I merge the two articles? Should I replace the old article with the translated one? Or I shouldn't do a translation at all? Medick522 (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Medick522. Good question. Unfortunately, there is no simple answer. This is for various reasons, but a major one is that each Wikipedia is a separate entity with its own rules and procedures; so we at the English Wikipedia cannot and should not give you advice about how to behave in another Wikipedia. I hope and expect that every Wikipedia would support you in trying to improve an article, but whether to do it by merging, or replacing is probably to be determined case by case according to the policies of that Wikipedia. Certainly you are permitted to translate an article into another language, provided that you attribute the source properly. WP:Translate us will give you information about this and other issues. --ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Title??

Please see [this article]. It is called in 3 names. and according to [this], I should be calling it Al-Hijr. can u also insert some references. Thank You A.A.Wasif | Talk 14:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Abdullah Al Wasif: Welcome! I have moved it to User:Abdullah Al Wasif/Al-Hijr per your request. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks A.A.Wasif | Talk 14:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
But a page Al Hijr already exists what should I do A.A.Wasif | Talk 15:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Abdullah Al Wasif: when you move this to the article space, add a describing factor in parentheses such as Al Hijr (building) or Al Hijr (food) and then put a WP:HATNOTE on top of the other article with the same name. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Abdullah Al Wasif: Your draft is basically a copy of your existing article at Hijr Ismail. You should cover all the alternate names in one article, and you definitely should NOT create a copy article. If you decide that the principal name of the article should be based on Al Hijr, you could add a parenthesized qualifier (as EoRdE6 says): maybe Al Hijr (Kaaba). And you could move the article to that title. Whatever you decide on the principal name, you can handle alternate names with Wikipedia:Redirects. —teb728 t c 19:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Creating a band article

I am in the process of writing my first article for Wikipedia about a band. I'm finding it very tricky for several reasons. I'm trying to make sure that it is balanced. I can prove it is notable per the parameters as they have been on national charts. My initial question is about how to quote reviewers from online magazines. Should I break the quote up and paraphrase, while footnoting it, or should I pullquote it in its entirety? Also, using the Arctic Monkeys page as an example, how do you go about creating the background info box as shown on the upper right corner of their page? Finally, how can you save an article without submitting it, as you're not finished with it yet? Corazon70Corazon70 (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Corazon70. I would paraphrase with footnotes. Arctic Monkeys uses {{Infobox musical artist}} for an infobox; see the top of their article in the edit screen. You can save in incomplete page in Draft space (like at Draft:Band Name) or in a user space sandbox like User:Corazon70/Band Name. —teb728 t c 18:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you for the info TEB728. It's all very daunting this. I really don't want to submit something until I'm sure that it's good to go, you know? Corazon70Corazon70 (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick question about archiving bots

I'm a little stumped trying to get MiszaBot working properly on a few talkpages, namely Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise) and Talk:Newgrounds. Particularly the latter; after several attempts to put the script on, I ended up giving up and copypasting the previous discussions manually into their own archive page as directed through the archive box that was on the right, but now what I've done is located in Talk:Newgrounds/Archive 1, and I realized just now there were already /Archive1 and /Archive2 pages set up prior to my attempt through a different archiving process, I think. If I messed something up, I'd be glad if someone took a look at it and told me how to fix it, as I'm not sure how.

For the Alien TP, the templates to get MiszaBot working were already on the page when I got to it, but there are still threads from nearly six months ago that haven't had any activity since that haven't been archived. So I'd like to know why that might be, and how to fix it if it requires fixing. Thanks, BlusterBlasterkablooie! 14:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on bots, but I know that MiszaBot will not make archives when the talk page is not of a minimum length, even if the threads on the page are old enough. Since the purpose of archiving is to keep the talk page a manageable size, this intended behavior. Knight of Truth (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

References in Talk Pages

Is it practice when raising issues on an article's Talk page to supply references? If so what is the recommended way of doing this say for an internet based reference? YvesPascal (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! You don't have to supply references when raising issues on the talk page, but when references are appropriate, just link to the webpage for a web citation (wrap the URL in square brackets, like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org]).
However, is this the issue that you need clarification on? If that is the case, as soon as you provide reliable sources to support the revision, please be bold and revise it! See here and here for other content policies you should know.
If you have any more questions, ask them below. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Esquivalience t 20:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the issue, will work on an update. Best regards YvesPascal (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision Deletion

I noticed, from the X! Edit Counter, that I have a deleted edit. Are deleted revisions, other than hoaxes, only visible for administrators, sysops, oversighters, etc.? How am I supposed to know what was deleted? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@The Average Wikipedian: Welcome. Deleted edits usually refer to edits to pages that have since been deleted. They can be viewed at Special:DeletedContributions by admins only. THey are nothing to be worrried about, I have over 500 deleted edits. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey. The only way I know of to know what was deleted (other than to notice what used to be here that you edited and is no longer) is to ask a user with higher permissions to give you a list (not of the content but of what pages were involved). That's not common but is not prohibited. The deleted edit in this case was your addition of a category to the redirect formerly at 2015 Big 12 Men's Basketball Tournament - Media timeout. That page was deleted as a side result of this AfD. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, EoRdE6. I was about to ask this question. :) DangerousJXD (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference on disambiguation page?

Is it proper to have a citation on a disambiguation page? Here is an example: Ngulu. Would you please provide a reference for your answer? Thanks. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Knife-in-the-drawer and welcome to the Teahouse. As per WP:DPL the disambiguation page only lists links to articles where the names can cause confusion. There is no reason to add a source as that would be on the article page itself. I have removed the addition that you identified as there is no article by that name. Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 06:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Cannot change title of incorrectly titled article, would appreciate some help

This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JakeByers is about the rapper Cam Meekins. I have contributed to about half of it but I am not allowed to change the title to Cam Meekins because of protection, is there any way someone could change the title to "Cam Meekins" or show me how to do so? Chair.With.Hands. (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! The article cannot be moved to the mainspace because it is someone's userpage, which is normally a page telling a little about themselves, but the user working on that page wrote it on their userpage.
However, you can just create the article by going here and copy-pasting the content from the user page to the article. However, before you do that, ensure that the subject is notable, (i.e. the subject has received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject). If the subject is notable, then be bold and create it!
Reply if you have any more questions. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Esquivalience t 20:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Chair.With.Hands. I have moved the article to Draft:Cam Meekins because, while it is not bad as a draft article, its references need formatting. --ColinFine (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@ColinFine i'm sorry cause im pretty new to wikipedia editting for the most part, but how can I fix the reference formatting? I would really like to have this wikipedia page posted properly but I am confused to be honest. Sorry againChair.With.Hands. (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I have also replaced the redirect on User:JakeByers by a message explaining what I have done. JakeByers (if you're reading this): your user page is not an appropriate place to create a draft article; if it contains anything it should be about you as a Wikipedia editor. --ColinFine (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Esquivalience, copying and pasting breaks the attribution requirements of our licenses. The page move function should be used instead, and this can be done now the page is in draft space. Also, Cam Meekins is currently create-protected so admin assistance would be required when the article is ready. BethNaught (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Chair.With.Hands. The title Cam Meekins was protected against re-creation because articles were repeatedly created under that title without ever indicating why Meekins would be important enough for an article in Wikipedia (most rappers are not that important). I still do not see in your draft a clear indication of his importance. Beside that we are looking for significant coverage in independent reliable sources; that excludes youtube, itunes, and blogs, and it excludes anything that Meekins says about himself. Without such significant coverage the article would be deleted again. —teb728 t c 23:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Chair.With.Hands. The page referencing for beginners will tell you both about how to format references to make them more useful, and about what are acceptable sources for references. --ColinFine (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I claim abandoned 7 years ago someone else's account?

I'm one step away from having universal account between my mother tongue language and English wiki. On my wiki I have over 11000 edits and over 200 articles, on English wiki someone created account under 'my' nick 7 years ago and abandoned it after 4 editions. Is it somehow possible to claim this account? If yes, please let me know how! Thank you --Beatace (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Heloo, Beatace. I don't think you can if they have any edits, but I'm not sure. The place to go for more information is WP:USURP. --ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Will do. Thank you ColinFine, appreciate! --Beatace (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Generalisation?

In the infoboxes of dot-com websites, in front of the Alexa rank field, it is mentioned of when it was updated
So, (As on Month, Year) must be there or (Month, Year)?
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 11:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello aGastya. {{infobox dot-com company}} does not specify the format of that date, so I presume that either is acceptable. In most places, Wikipedia does not insist on a particular format for dates. --ColinFine (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you!
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 12:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_324&oldid=1138689330"