Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 335

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 330 ← Archive 333 Archive 334 Archive 335 Archive 336 Archive 337 → Archive 340

How do you write squared?

How would you write km with a small 2 by it on, for example, Mindhola River? Rubbish computer (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer:Well, actually you don't use the "small 2". The preferred way is to use the Template:Convert which also automatically converts the units to other units than the metric system for those readers that are more familiar with other systems. For other cases where you need as smaller text above or below the normal text, the code is available at Help:Wiki markup#Subscripts and superscripts. w.carter-Talk 11:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Rubbish computer (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Btw, the Infobox Geobox used on that page has an automatic converter built in as you can see where the "Length" of the river is added. In the box you only write "105" and it comes out as "105 km (65 mi)". w.carter-Talk 11:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Rubbish computer (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: wikimark up is similar to HTML. So for superscript use <sup> and subscript can be done by <sub>. But use it in paragraph. Most of the HTML codes run here. So, ever if you want to do these type of formatting, use the HTML code, BUT REMEMBER... not all work. Like linking isn't same
64.233.173.179 (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Two simple answers are either ALT+0178 which gives ², or there is a symbol for m² under "Special characters / Symbols" on the editing toolbar - you can then add a k to give km² or remove the m to give ² and add whatever other unit you want. - Arjayay (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Rubbish computer (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: It's best to use <sup> and <sub> or the equivalent {{Sub}} and {{Sup}}. Different fonts have different support for superscript characters, even the Unicode definitions did not include all digits until relatively recently - and still does not include all lower case letters. Since ² is different from 2 and we want consistency it's better to avoid the super and subscripted symbols. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC).

How am I missing the requirements for adding an article?

Good morning

I submitted an article for review in February and then again earlier this week. Both times it was rejected because it reads as an essay and not encyclopedia entry. The most recent editing made an effort to remove opinions and also shorten the entry.

I looked at similar entries for American artisan cheese makers and don't see the differences between them and my submitted article. I want very much to get this right and need Teahouse help.

Also both images were rejected, but when I attempted to add further information, found they were removed as well as any documentation.

Thanks

JeffOldvermontcheese (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Jeff, there is already the comment and suggestions from CookieMonster755 at the top of the article (Draft:Caves at Faribault). I agree with what they said as what most stuck out to me is all the registered® names, the lead reads like a product list than an introduction to the company. Also as they mentioned some sections are in need of references, and where the references are online you should link them (such as for heavytable.com). As its not a subject I know about I look for other American artisan cheese makers and found Beecher's Handmade Cheese which is marked as a Good article and looks like a good one to use as a comparison. Both File:Fleckenstein Brewery.jpg and File:Fleckenstein photo.jpg where both deleted as (F4: Lack of source and licensing information) you need to add the relevant information as noted in the posts on your talk page. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference

Where can I ask if a particular website qualifies for citing something on Wikipedia?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 17:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Hello, you can always ask here or if you want a more formal answer, there is this Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

IP Address

My IP address isn't displayed correctly? As per Google, my IP address begins with 117. And my last edit's sign, it is 64. I checked the edits, and only 3 were there. That too, 2 are not mine! Why so?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 16:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Acagastya as you edit with logged in your edits will not show against your IP address. As for the 2 you did not make there are a number of reasons. Firstly unless you've paid for a static IP address from your ISP it can change, and thus another customer of the ISP may have had the address when the edits where made. Another reason could be someone you've let use your connection (many people let friends and family use there WiFi when visiting), or if not well secured it could have been used illegally by someone. The first option is usually the most likely. KylieTastic (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - I suspect you have a Dynamic IP address - one that is regularly re-allocated - so your IP address will change, to one that has previously been used by other people, some of whom may have edited Wikipedia. For a fuller explanation of Static v Dynamic IP addresses see here. This causes lots of confusion, as all the edits from that IP will be shown together, as we do not know when an IP address has been re-allocated. This is one of the reasons people should Create an account - Arjayay (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
2 were not my edits. Few days ago, I've made some edits through that device and that isn't shown in the list. Here, that 64. was edit by me but mine begins with 117.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 16:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The two answers above address your questions, Acagastya. Liz Read! Talk! 17:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

reapplying a duplication tag.

Yesterday I flagged the new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reyna_ng_Aliwan as a direct duplication of an existing wikipedia article of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliwan_Fiesta. Except the latter article had more information and a better layout.

Today I see the user that created the second article has deleted their user page but "another" user has deleted the tag with no talk. This user did not sign in. just IP address. Is it normal practice to simply re-add the tag? It is 100% duplication

Drjamesphillips (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it could have been re-added in those circumstances.
The page has since been deleted and I have now redirected it to the original page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC).

Taking a Page Down

Hello Can you please tell me everything that I need to do to have a page taken down? Annalynnehurtgen (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Annalynnehurtgen:. Pages are generally taken down if they are blatant copyright violations or if they are purely unsourced attack pages or if they otherwise fail to meet the requirements for a stand alone article by which there are several processes the "speedy" (for truly problematic content in one of several specific areas, the week long "uncontested" method or the formal discussion. Is there a particular article that you are inquiring about? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I there a Q&A for wikipedia

I was wondering if there's a Q&A for wikipedia where you can ask questions in this style of information retrieval and knowledge management (unfortunately the article on Q&A websites is completely unrelated to Q&A website, so you'll have to figure out what it is by visiting stackexchange.com or a similar site - this is the reason why I'm getting started with wikipedia). Criteria for my search are:

  • voting and flagging system (unrelated to privilege system of the example stackexchange.com) (we can see that wikipedia needs it desperately)
  • no noise (consider the question

    How do you write squared?

    How would you write km with a small 2 by it on, for example, Mindhola River? Rubbish computer (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

    @Rubbish computer:Well, actually you don't use the "small 2". The preferred way is to use the Template:Convert which also automatically converts the units to other units than the metric system for those readers that are more familiar with other systems. For other cases where you need as smaller text above or below the normal text, the code is available at Help:Wiki markup#Subscripts and superscripts. w.carter-Talk 11:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

    Thank you. Rubbish computer (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

    Oh, Btw, the Infobox Geobox used on that page has an automatic converter built in as you can see where the "Length" of the river is added. In the box you only write "105" and it comes out as "105 km (65 mi)". w.carter-Talk 11:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

    Thank you. Rubbish computer (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

    should be

    How do you write squared?

    How would you write km with a small 2 by it on, for example, Mindhola River? Rubbish computer (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

    @Rubbish computer: You don't use the "small 2". The preferred way is to use the Template:Convert which also automatically converts the units to other units than the metric system for those readers that are more familiar with other systems. For other cases where you need as smaller text above or below the normal text, the code is available at Help:Wiki markup#Subscripts and superscripts. w.carter-Talk 11:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

    The Infobox Geobox used on that page has an automatic converter built in as you can see where the "Length" of the river is added. In the box you only write "105" and it comes out as "105 km (65 mi)". w.carter-Talk 11:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • smart preview (as you can see during writing here, it's a huge time wasting factor to not have one...)

Zgh (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @Zgh:. I may be showing my age, but I am not sure exactly you're asking for. If you're looking for answers to Frequently Asked Questions, there is Wikipedia:FAQ. But that does not allow you to "ask questions in this style of information retrieval and knowledge management" (whatever that means). The Teahouse here does allow you to ask questions, which will be answered by real, live people who won't always get everything perfectly right the first time in spite of their best efforts. Will you please explain (simply for us dummies) what kind of thing you are looking for?--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The thing is that there's no usable wikipedia article on Q&A website, therefore I referred to stackexchange.com as an example what I mean - If you don't know it or didn't check it out, there's few sense to comment here imo. Thanks for the references; they don't cover what I'm searching for. I asked on the Q&A website webapps.stackexchange.com, you might want to check it out :) Zgh (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking about but it sounds like the proposal for something new, that Wikipedia currently doesn't do. You might post a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and see if you can get other editors interested in your project. If you have technical questions, the best place to ask is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Liz Read! Talk! 17:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Reference desk, where a lot of questions can be answered, Zgh. Not sure if that would help.—Anne Delong (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Zgh, you can find almost anything you need on the Wikipedia by writing either WP:Whatever you are looking for or Help:Whatever you are looking for. There are hundreds of these pages. Try a subject, you will be amazed by how much you can find this way. That said, the WP has a policy (since many users, especially newcomers like it) to actually provide answers manually on pages like the Teahouse, that is communicating rather than just give "canned answers". This helps new editors to get used to interact with the community, something that is vital for most things here. The Wikipedia is a huge place and cooperation is the best way to make it work. Welcome to the community! w.carter-Talk 21:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Where to discuss changes to that principle? The issue of "canned answers" doesn't relate strongly to the issues I mentioned above. I'm sure I'm not the first one coming with the problems and solutions mentioned as criteria for a Q&A style.Zgh (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

By all means Zgh, you can discuss it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) if you like, but you have been at the Wikipedia for about half a day and nine edits, why don't you try to participate in building the encyclopedia first. Best, w.carter-Talk 21:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Why would I start to contribute to the encyclopedia if I'm convinced that the way it's currently done is unfit (regardless of the billions of contributions the site has seen and the reputation it has - for a good reason). If I'm willing to contribute on the meta level where I see potential rather than on the content level where I would do work that I don't like and have no talent for, I prefer to do what I think I'm good at. If you want to reduce that to my contributions to Wikipedia... If I see after 5 seconds what's wrong and ask for clearification and it turns out that it is really wrong, you should hear me out. I'll check out Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks for the pointer.Zgh (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Zgh, perhaps you should try at the Meta-Wiki instead, if that is the level you want to contribute on? w.carter-Talk 22:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A list of pages that should be proofread?

I know there was a list pages somewhere on wikipedia that required attention for grammatical flaws; now, I cannot seem to find that list?UnchainedPhilosophy (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@UnchainedPhilosophy: Are you looking for Category:All articles needing copy edit and/or Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit? CabbagePotato (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors might also be of interest to you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, and yes, that is kind of what I was looking for. It would be nice for having a user-friendly interface, and for making editing on wikipedia as an interactive pursuit easier for new editors such as myself, if there was a social "forum" of sorts for wikipedia editors to keep

track of the most important edits as they come up. How does an ambitious new editor find out where wikipedia needs him most? UnchainedPhilosophy (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@UnchainedPhilosophy: You might find Wikipedia:Community portal useful, at least if you're looking for different things to do. CabbagePotato (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Technical Help?

Hello, I was developing the Joseph Michael Levry article which was graciously taken down due to lack of sources, and I noticed now when you search his name on the internet, this comes up:

Joseph Michael Levry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Michael_Levry‎ I am respectfully asking for the deletion of this page under this code as this page does not represent who Joseph Michael Levry is due to a lack of secondary ...

Can Wikipedia please remove the "I am respectfully asking for the deletion of this page under this code as this page does not represent who Joseph Michael Levry is due to a lack of secondary ..."

Because since that page no longer exists, I have no way to do it myself. Or tell me how to do it...I know there has to be a way...Thank you!98.112.153.174 (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Search engines such as Google scour the internet, including Wikipedia, for any information about a search term. It is entirely up to the search engines how they display their search results, and Wikipedia has nothing to do with this. We do not delete pages about deletion discussions, as this information is useful to other editors if someone tries to recreate a deleted article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
it was accidentally posted in the wrong place, it was not in a discussion forum, but I see what you are saying.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.153.174 (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

From Stub to Approved Article

Hello! I was wondering how to get my article changed from a stub to an actual article. I have added a few things to the "Snickerdoodle" stub, however, it was labeled as "low importance". I was wondering if someone could take a look at it and edit it. Thank you!Kloanzon (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kloanzon. A stub is an actual article and stubs do not need to be "approved" by anyone. Instead, they need to be improved and expanded by anyone. Here is the definition of a stub:
"A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion."
I will take a look at your work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the designation to "start". I believe that the article now places undue weight on commercial Snickerdoodle flavored and scented products. The article should be primarily about the cookie.
The references you added are bare URLs. Please read Referencing for beginners, and flesh out the references. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

doc

We have /doc pages for templates. So how is its formatting: and what all should be mentioned?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 10:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Acagastya. See Wikipedia:Template documentation, and see examples with widely used templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Mandatory Palestine vs. Palestine

Regarding the entry on Palestinian journalist Raja El-Issa who was born in 1922 in British Mandatory Palestine. The original text listed his country of birth as Palestine, which is incorrect, since no country by that name existed at that time. This is why Wikipedia has separate articles on Mandatory Palestine and Palestine. I corrected the link and someone who goes by the name of Makeandtoss (but has no user profile) changed it back to Palestine. Is there a clear Wikipedia policy on this issue? After all, Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, is listed correctly as having been born in Mandatory Palestine, not Palestine. Zozoulia (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Zozoulia. You make a good point, but please be aware that all articles in the Israel/Palestine topic area are subject to discretionary sanctions. Do not revert. Instead, discuss the issue diplomatically on the article's talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and good to hear that that this is a topic that is monitored and subject to sanctions. I have posted on the talk page. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, Makeandtoss has no user profile and I cannot send a message to him or her directly. I did notice, however, that all of his or her contributions are solely about the Palestinians, which leads me to believe that we're talking about a NPOV matter here. Zozoulia (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zozoulia: It doesn't matter whether Makeandtoss has created a user page. You can communicate with the editor by going to User talk:Makeandtoss and leaving a message there. (That's not a red link in this case, but even if it is—indicating that the user has not received any previous messages—you can simply create the talk page by posting a message.) Deor (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Quality scale / grade for article talk pages

Hey! Can someone please tell me about them? Can I change the grade of an article? Here is a "quality scale" from a WikiProject referring to the grade things on talk pages so you know what I'm referring to. They are in the "Banner box" on article talk pages and say something like this: "This article has been rated as a stub on the WikiProject's quality scale". —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: That's a rough estimate of an article's quality. "Stub" is an article that's very short and doesn't adequately cover the subject, and then it gets progressively better. The borders between "stub", "start" and "C" are somewhat ambiguous, but "B" usually comes with a set of explicit criteria, and "Good Articles" and the even better "Featured Articles" have dedicated review processes ("A" has fallen into disuse, being largely replaced by GA and FA). Combined with the "importance" scale, the quality scale gives an indication of which articles one may want to focus on - improving a high-importance stub may be more beneficial to our readers than adding some bells and whistles to a low-importance B-class article. You're welcome to change them if you feel they do not reflect the article's quality (or initiate a review, for the better qualities), but ultimately it's not that important an aspect of Wikipedia - improving an article is far more helpful than re-rating it. Huon (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

References

On, for example, 1864 in Canada, where I have put references using the Cite web template, do I need to write the publisher? No error message comes up when I don't include the publisher and I am not sure what to write for publisher on each one. Thank you. Rubbish computer (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, publisher is an optional field and it isn't relevant if the content is self published or the publisher isn't apparent. In most cases you can just leave it blank. Hope that answers your question :) Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Be careful, though. Sources where you can't identify a publisher are not likely to be reliable sources. For example http://www.vipfaq.com/Henry%20Edgarton%20Allen.html while it is a fun site, most likely gets its information from scraping Wikipedia and similar sources. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC).

Creating a Page in User Space

My username is Sguthery. I'd like to create a page in my User Space. According to the instructions, the syntax for creating a FooBar page in my User Space is 'User:FooBar'. It's a silly question but do I type "User:FooBar" into the search box or "Sguthery:FooBar" into the search box to initialize the creation of the page. Or perhaps something else. Thanks in advance for your guidance ... and patience. Cheers, Scott Sguthery (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Oh and don't use User:FooBar as that is the user space belonging to the user "FooBar" (if one exists, all your user pages must start User:Sguthery KylieTastic (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As for how to start the new page, you can search for User:Sguthery/FooBar, or just edit the url in the browser (say if your in your user page User:Sguthery you would just add the /FooBar to the url, or you could create a link from an existing page to take you to User:Sguthery/FooBar — KylieTastic (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Which page has the instructions you refer to? Maybe it needs clarification that for user pages the username must be in the pagename of form "User:username/subpagename". PrimeHunter (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
You can find some guidelines at Wikipedia:User pages. Liz Read! Talk! 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

What happens to those heroes who don't have press articles on them?

What happens to those heroes who don't have press articles on them?Enso1234 (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Enso1234, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure why you ask but if you wonder whether they can get Wikipedia articles then they have to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). That means significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It doesn't have to be press articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
What happens to them - hopefully they lead long lives, filled with meaning and the satisfaction of knowing that they made a positive difference in the world. But as PrimeHunter said, their Wikipedia articles have to wait until there is enough coverage in reliable sources.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
What happens? Well, for one thing, they don't have to worry that some wacko anonymous yahoo has re-written their Wikipedia article to be full of lies and scandal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
For example we have articles on every Victoria Cross recipient (and have done for some years). The same applies to many other awards, that are well documented. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC).

Books as references

I know Academic books and old Magazines printed by well known publishing houses or written by a reputed author can be used as reliable sources. But in case, someone wants to check whether the lines written on WP pages are really taken from that book and no original research or any misquoting was done, then it's not possible for anybody to purchase all those fat books and read it to check whether the edit was done correctly.

Some books are available in google docs or online libraries and can be checked .

But a Non-Fiction book , whose not a single full version is available online, then how do people check sources when they vote for featured articles?C E (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You might try WikiProject Resource Exchange when that happens to see if someone in the community can assist. You can make specific requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
There are also these things called libraries. ; ) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I know about libraries, but there is no library in the world where all books are stored, and the country where i live, libraries are shutting down. I wanted to know if someone quotes from a book, how do page watchers and administrators check whether the edit was correct. Those books whose only hard copy exist. Or people simply trust the editor if he/she quotes from a book? When an article is nominated for featured article/good article, do the reviewers check the book sources and match the source with whatever is written on that WP-Article from that book? C E (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Does the policy page help answer your question Wikipedia:Verifiability#Accessibility? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I have acquired a small number of books for the purpose of checking citations. However, like everyone else, I have neither the space nor the money for the books I would like to have. I can usually find something by hook or by crook. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC).
Hello CosmicEmperor. An Interlibrary loan is always a possibility. WorldCat is a massive online catalog of every book held by 72,000 libraries in 170 countries. With patience and a bit of effort, you can borrow almost any book ever published. Trusting the editor is always an option too. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Good source related problems

Hello,

I wanted to ask whether 'Encyclopaedia Britannica' was a good enough source to be considered as a reliable source?

Thanks Komchi✉☆ 02:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Komchi. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, and Encyclopaedia Brittanica is among the best of them. Secondary sources are preferred here on Wikipedia, and among the best of secondary sources are books written by academic experts and published by university presses or the most reputable mainstream publishers. Clearly, not all sources will meet such high standards, especially when writing about recent events and popular culture. No matter the topic, though, an effort should be made to use the best available sources. Ideally, secondary sources should be the backbone of an article, with primary sources and tertiary sources being used carefully and with restraint to fill in the gaps. An article published in another encyclopedia can be a useful tool for helping ensure that the equivalent article here on Wikipedia is balanced and does not give undue weight to certain aspects of the topic. Please see WP:TERTIARY for specific discussion of use of sources like other encyclopedias, and the adjoining sections discuss related issues regarding evaluation of sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright Thanks Komchi✉☆ 02:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Stub Resolution

How do I have my page checked to turn it from a stub to a real article?

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

Saralight2015 (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Saralight2015, welcome to the Teahouse. A stub is an article. A stub is the grade of an artcle. Just because an article is a stub, it doesn't mean it isn't an article. So yeah, it's already an article. :) —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The title for an article

Hello guys, I've got a problem.

I built up an article. Originally it was named as "Peryn". The user Timtrent (talk · contribs) renamed it into "Perýn", but that is incorrectly, as that contradicts to Russian-English practical transcription, and "ý" in "Perýn" just shows word stress. Nobody transliterates cyrillic letters into latin letters the way it has been done, and that is important as related to the name of object. Moreover, the object is called in the English literature as Peryn, and NOT as Perýn. The disambiguating message has already been added there to facilitate, I think that is more than enough to solve the disambiguation.

I kindly ask somebody to bring "Peryn" back, as I have not managed to carry this out on my own --Sterndmitri (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sterndmitri: I did this simply because you had put "Perýn" as the first word of the article. Who knew? WP:RM will let you request a move, or a passing admin here may do it. Fiddle Faddle 08:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Now moved back. Sterndmitri can I suggest that you rephrase the lead paragraph so that it starts with the title Peryn and the pronunciation and emphasis is bracketed to avoid future confusion. Nthep (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Nthep, done. Thanks! --Sterndmitri (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are my contributions saved on the actual page, but it doesn't show up under "history"?

I made some major edits to the "Environmental impact of agriculture" page, in which it appears that my changes have been saved. However, when I go under the "history page", it doesn't show that I made the changes. If I look up my username under "contributions" though, it shows that I made changes to that page. So why doesn't my contributions show up under the history section of the page? Emmaannjo (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Emmaannjo and welcome. I have looked at View history for that article and it shows you have made three edits to the article. Flat Out talk to me 04:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Emmaannjo: Maybe you need to bypass your browser cache to see the current version of the page history. I see three edits by you at [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Check of relevance

Hello, I would like to post an article about a german cluster of excellence, that does international reasearch. Is there any opportunity to have a check on relevance (notability is given) before I post the article?

Many thanky in advance! Annika131.169.134.79 (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to teahouse.Don't just directly post the article. You can make a draft and ask for reviewing it. But be on the safer side and have a look at WP:Notability
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 11:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the above, check WP:Notability- generally to be notable, they need to have received significant, independent coverage from reliable sources. If you think they pass WP:Notability, then I would recommend creating a draft using WP:AFC- this lets your draft get reviewed and improved before becoming a proper article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A "Cache" Question

Hello, Wikipedia graciously took down a page that I requested, called Joseph Michael Levry. I noticed on the google search engine, when you put in Levry's name, it comes up under Wikipedia. Before you even click on his name, there is a little arrow that when you click on it, it scrolls down and gives you two options ("cache" or "similar") and the "cache" option brings up a snapshot of Levry's page as it was, probably a week or two ago, but it says the snapshot is of what the page was as of Apr 26 the day it was deleted. This is what the message says, I copied it:

This is Google's cache of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Michael_Levry. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Apr 26, 2015 01:37:00 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.

Do you know why it would say that it is a snapshot of the way the page was on Apr 26, when it really is the way the editors changed it over a week ago? Why is there that discrepancy? Do you know? It should come up as the day it was taken down. Thank you for your insight!98.112.153.174 (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This is really a question for Google, not Wikipedia. The article has been deleted but it still might reside in Google's cache for a few weeks. Liz Read! Talk! 18:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it is because the act of redirecting the page occurred on the 26, Google likely cached it earlier that day. The photo was taken at 01:37:00 GMT, the redirect took place at 2:01. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

But it took a picture of the page the way it was a week ago, not a day before the 26th....isn't that interesting?98.112.153.174 (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it took a snapshot of the way the page was at the time Google correctly stated, at least when I view Google's cache. The top of their cache says "It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 26 Apr 2015 01:37:00 GMT". The bottom of the snapshot says "This page was last modified on 26 April 2015, at 01:33." That means it is the page revision from 26 April 2015, 01:33 (UTC), i.e. this. The changes between a week ago and the dispalyed revision are [2]. All those changes are part of the snapshot. If you believe otherwise then please say which date and time you see at the bottom of the snapshot, and which changes you think are missing. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Where is the link?

Where can I find the link for #tag:inputbox in the search box template (or something like that).
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 10:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Acagastya. Things with # in front are features and not links to editable code like templates. #tag is documented at mw:Help:Magic words#Miscellaneous. Many other #... are at mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions. inputbox is documented at mw:Extension:InputBox. See mw:Extension:InputBox#Parser function for the combination #tag:inputbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thank you @PrimeHunter: It is really helpful!
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 12:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Using websites as references

I noticed throughout wikipedia, like for instance on the Jivamukti page and the Snatam Kaur page, that they are allowed to reference their websites, even though they sell things on those websites. Can the teahouse please tell give me some guidelines as to when websites are and are not acceptable?98.112.153.174 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Could you please specify what are you editing? I may help you then Komchi✉☆ 05:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello IP editor. When referencing an article about a notable commercial entity, it is permissable to include that entity's website as an external link, and as a source for basic uncontroversial facts. For example, our article about the Ford Motor Company and Apple Computer will include material from those websites, even though those websites sell automobiles and personal electronic products. But it would be inappropriate to include the Ford website in our article Automobile or include the Apple website in our article Computer. That would be considered spam. The same holds true for articles about a specific yoga school or a specific Sikh musician. If coverage in independent reliable sources shows that these topics are notable, then careful and limited use of their websites is appropriate. I have not studied these articles in detail, and perhaps editing and trimming is appropriate in either or both cases, and I am making a general point. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. To add a little to the answers above, it depends on what statements the reference is there to support. A company's own Web pages may be fine for basic, uncontroversial information such as when it was formed or where its head office is, but that is all. Similarly, other sites that sell products may be used in limited situations - see, for example, the discussion at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#E-commerce_sources. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Commented out images

In many articles I find that images have been commented out because "the image has been deleted" and the original name of the image is still there in the comment. Is there any reason to not remove this comment; surely if the image has been deleted it no longer exists on the Wikipedia database so what is the point in leaving a comment? One example can be seen in the Thelma Thall article in the infobox. Jodosma (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Jodosma, some people and some bots do this rather than delete, I tend to only do it if other information could be lost (i.e. non trivial caption, reference etc.). I tend to remove commented out images unless they are new as they don't serve any purpose after a while that the page history does not serve better (as it has a date and edit summary). Also I run into a few red-linked images a week where people just uncomment. So yes, just go ahead and remove. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, one other thing you can do before just removing is check if the removed image had replaced a valid one that you can resurrect - a lot of valid images are replaced by copyrighted ones, that are then removed rather than reverted, so always good to check. KylieTastic (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to do that. Jodosma (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing header name on published Wiki page

I created a page for a scientist Fred Mackenzie. It was approved as start class, but I would like to change his name from Frederick to Fred, which after more research, I've found is the name he uses most often -- he is rarely referred to as Frederick. I am concerned that students and other interested in his work will not find him on wiki. I can't figure out how to change it in the header. I changed the name on the first paragraph but header remained the same. Thank you so much!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_T._Mackenzie Littleiiwi (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Littleiiwi: you can just move the page using the option to move on the top of the page of article!(present at righter side)
That's it! A redirect will be created and the title will be changed!
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 18:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your quick response. I started to make the move and am a little nervous that it will get deleted. There is another Fred Mackenzie (a golfer) so if I keep the scientist's middle initial as in: Fred T. Mackenzie, do you think it will be safe to move? I don't want to take a chance of losing the entire article.

Littleiiwi (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Haha, Don't fear! Be bold! If there is another person, you need to make one change. After writing the name and surname, add this (scientist) i.e. move the page to Fred Mackenzie (scientist)
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 18:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
aGastya, to answer your question, he is referred to as Fred T and Fred. I am unsure what I should do. I have also been asked to remove all external links from body of text. Is that related to this change?

Littleiiwi (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not because of this change. It says This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (April 2015)
Do not use those external links that does not follow the guidelines. Read WP:External links and excessive link Probably, what you need to do can be described by User:W.carter
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 19:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
You can do one thing. Not sure if middle name is to be included or not, create a new page named Fred Mackenzie (scientist). And redirect it to Fred T. Mackenzie (scientist)
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 20:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay in explaining to the new editor. Real Life got in the way for a while. I'll continue on their talk page. w.carter-Talk 20:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Unsure of suitable article

Hi I want to write an article about a young woman in fashion (she's 16) however is really inspirational and has done and is continuing to do some amazing things within the fashion industry, which I believe are really notable and inspirational. Nevertheless, she is not extremely well know I would still love to write one about her? 2.220.99.103 (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on what you say, which is that she is not well known but is inspirational, it sounds as though the article might not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As has been said in response to a few recent previous questions, you are encouraged to submit the article via the Articles for Creation process, to allow the promotional content to be stripped out and the notability to be reviewed. Also, in view of the subject's age, the guidelines on biographies of living persons will be applied even more strictly than usual. However, you should bear in mind that it is likely that the article will be declined. Thank you for asking rather than just writing the article and complaining about its deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, 2.220.99.103. "Notable" in the Wikipedia world does not mean the same as in general usage: it does not mean "famous", "significant", "important" or "worthy". It means "several people unconnected with the subject have already written substantially about the subject, and been published in reliable places". If nobody has written much about her, or if only her friends and associates have written about her, or if other people have written but been published only in unreliable places like forums or blogs, then she is not yet notable in Wikipedia's sense. --ColinFine (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Article Review Needs Attention

Is there anybody that can glance over this article very quickly and give me some feedback? I just added to a stub and this is my first time editing and was wondering what I could improve on! Britney Spears doll Saralight2015 (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Saralight2015. You have done a good job improving the article and I upgraded it from "stub" to "start" with no hesitation. By the way, I wrote a doll article myself, Skookum doll. Keep up the good work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

article approval: martin tillman

Hi!

I am having a time getting an article approved when i see I have followed every bit of advice as well as met every rule in accordance to notability for composers/musicians. Below please find where I see I meet requirements and please help me understand what specifically needs to happen to expedite the articles completion to be "live" on wikipedia. Thank you very much in advance for all your help.

A. In order to meet Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. All information is true and fact based as found in corresponding links below per each requirement for musicians/composers.

B. Criteria for musicians and ensembles A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/arts/music/27elto.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1428523321-ML68g73chaUoLVoabW01TQ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oscars-music-hans-zimmer-pharrell-williams-esperanza-spalding-295960 AND Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7526033.stm http://horrorunlimited.blogspot.com/2014/12/dark-hearts-secret-of-haunting-melissa.html http://www.blick.ch/people-tv/kino/cellist-martin-tillman-schweizer-macht-musik-fuer-batman-id1720847.html

C. Criteria for composers and lyricists 1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. 2. http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=109379&forumID=1&archive=0&pageID=1&r=180#bottom

3. http://www.soundtrackgeek.com/v2/tag/martin-tillman/ 

 Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.

ODESSA http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/77832/kelly-keys-anchor-ali-soundtrack

D. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. http://www.blick.ch/people-tv/filmmusik-star-martin-tillman-und-seine-ms-kranke-frau-eva-das-leben-ist-ein-geschenk-id2656566.html http://www.blick.ch/people-tv/kino/cellist-martin-tillman-schweizer-macht-musik-fuer-batman-id1720847.html


E. Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. *I think the lack of direct, significant coverage can be overlooked considering his serious musical accomplishments as both a composer as well as a musician especially since all of my sources are very reliable.*

F. notability guideline please see all articles above including all links found in my martin tillman draft that proves notability for standalone article. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

Best christinamm Christinamm (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Being a backing musician for Elton John doesn't constitute a lead role. I don't have time to go through the rest of your references right now, but I suggest you look critically at them, and proffer the best evidence that he meets WP:MUSIC rather than all the evidence. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC).
http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=109379&forumID=1&archive=0&pageID=1&r=180#bottom is a forum - it has almost zero value as a Wikipedia reference, or to support notability. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC).


He is a prominent member of the band and specifically singled out in the article as "augmenting" the show for Elton John. This is the point I'm trying to make in this particular scenario.

With each reviewer I am getting different feedback and critiques. I have made this entire article not sound like a promotion and be informative. I have given solid examples from third party sources of this Martins notability. What can I do to get this page up? Christinamm (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)christinamm

What it takes for any subject to be notable is for the subject to be discussed in detail in multiple reliable sources. Far and away the majority of your sources are not considered reliable. See WP:RS for guidance on reliable sources, as one of your reviewers already told you. The few reliable sources you have are mentions of your subject, not discussion of him in detail. It may be time to face up too the fact that it is at best WP:TOOSOON to write an article on him. John from Idegon (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Christinamm, as your userpage states that you work for Tillman you also should read the Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest and be aware of the sensitivities about editing articles when you have a connection with the subject. Nthep (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.5.215.46 (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

i understand the guidelines and have followed them and my sources are exactly as requested. i feel like my page is under a microscope. in regards to "too soon"-- there was already a page a from another editor poorly done. lastly, i fully grasp the conflicts of interest clause, what I'm seeking is to post facts.

this system of numerous editors has proven rather unproductive, as i am repeating myself over and again while following advice while people want "more" when there is more than enough to support this article as a stand alone with valid, third party sources.

are there proper moderators or a singular, reasonable person that can please offer me productive assistance?

best, Christinamm (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)christinamm

Casual review of draft articles

I just want to know if there's a specific place I ought to go if I just want someone more experienced to give their take on a draft article I'm working on-- not like a full-on AfC review as if I'm ready for the thing to go live, but just to give it a cursory glance and some pointers. I mean, I guess I could just ask any old user to look at it, but I'm not really acquainted with any specific editors yet and I'd rather not shove it in some random person's face if there's a space where people are voluntarily lending an eye to works in progress. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 19:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Any experienced editor could be helpful to you but you might think about inquiring on a WikiProject talk page if your topic is covered by the project. Here is a directory: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. WikiProjects vary in their activity, some are very busy while others are dormant but it might be useful for you to get feedback from an editor who is knowledgeable about the field you are writing about. Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_335&oldid=1089267107"