Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 402

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

Archive 395

←

Archive 400

Still puzzled

I am confused. Wikipedia is saying that you have more knowledge than me without knowing me. My article is good. If a scientist needs articles about him/her, that is a poor criterion for inclusion. Indeed, I have seen many entries which have no valuable references, submitted by the subjects themselves. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Velterop My article has real references in HIGHLY prestigious journals. You should delete Velterop and disbar the person who approved his self-written article. So, if a scientist hasn't been written about before, Wikipedia is not interested? Weird. I'll keep trying. The article is good. Have you read it? Are you a scientist? 'I am an experienced editor and publisher ... published c.1,000 journals. Badspice (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue appears to be the decline of Draft:Tamas Bartfai. I haven't reviewed the article at sufficient length to comment on whether it should have been accepted or declined, but the lengthy rant by the submitter in response to the decline shows that they appear to be submitting original research. Please read Wikipedia policies, including the original research policy, and read the comments of the reviewers. As to the complaint about another article, read the essay on the irrelevance of other stuff, but, if, in your opinion, Jan Velterop is not adequately sourced, you may nominate it for deletion. ~~Also, are you Tamas Bartfai? If so, please read the conflict of interest policy and the guideline on autobiographies.~~ Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Continuing to argue in favor of a declined draft rather than paying attention to the comments of the reviewers and other editors here is tendentious editing. Please stop and listen. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC) **I don't know how to respond officially. I am not Tamas Bartfai. I have a PhD in biophysics and neuroscience from Cambridge. Non-plagiarised original writing is not "research". It's just interesting. I have found loads more references so I have complied and am at a loss to know how to make it better. I am not ranting. Sorry to have upset you. I am flying to Chicago in a few hours so my revisions shouldn't be too quick. Sorry to trouble you**

Hello Badspice. I am a scientist. Much more junior in my career than you (I have precisely one published article to my name). I've also been editing Wikipedia for a fair few years.

The way Wikipedia works as a "publisher" and the way scientific publishing works are very different. It is because scientific publishing exists to promote good original research and uses a peer-review system of experts. Wikipedia is trying to create an compendium of existing knowledge (as you may have discovered, original research is specifically prohibited). Because Wikipedia is open to all, credentials and reputation of editors do not have currency here. It's sometimes difficult for me to "transition" between the two modes, but I've come to understand that Wikipedia's approach demonstrably works for building an encyclopaedia, but wouldn't work for scientific publishing, and vice-versa. --LukeSurl^{t c} 14:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Badspice, I am sorry that you are still puzzled. Please remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary publication. This means it is not based on independent research as a journal article is, nor is it based (largely) on such primary account as review articles and say academic histories are. Rather it is based on what secondary sources have said on the topic. If you were writing an article about the subject of a scientist's work, then that scientist's publications might well be good sources, but not when writing a biographical article about the scientist himself (or herself). So when writing about Relativity, or the Photoelectric effect, we might cite Einstein's well-known papers. But when writing about Albert Einstein himself, we don't use those as evidence of his notability; instead we use some of the many biographies and other writings published by others about him. This is because Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on what independent sources have written about a topic, and if no independent sources are cited, there is nothing to work from.

No one is saying that s/he knows more than you, except about Wikipedia policies. We are saying that what you personally know about a person is not useful in a Wikipedia article, because it is not verifiable. You may think that Wikipedia's notion of notability is "a poor criterion for inclusion." You are welcome to argue that this policy be changed, but it has been in place since the foundation of Wikipedia, and will not be changed easily.

The English-language Wikipedia has nearly 5 million articles, and many of them are not fully compliant with our policies. Some were created in earlier years when our policies and standards were looser. Therefore, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the argument "Article X exists and does not comply with standard Q" is not accepted as a good reason to exempt any other article from Standard Q. At most it gets someone to look at X.

As to my personal qualifications (not that they are really relevant) my degree is in Physics, and I am a professional Computer Scientist and Software Developer. I was the chair of ACM's Special Interest Group on APL and array programming languages for several years, and the editor of its Conference Proceedings for two years. I am not unaware of the standards of academic publishing.

If in fact the subject of your would-be article is as important as you say (and I am not doubting your statements) it should not be a problem to find sources that have written about him. That will be more productive, and probably easier, than arguing about what Wikipedia's inclusion criteria ought to be — trust me, such arguments get long and wearing. I have participated in several. DES ^(talk) 15:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

- Thank you. I am not Tamas Bartfai, but I am a writer and published author. I didn't know Wikipedia only compiles stuff. My writing is not original research (just not plagiarised) and indeed compiles a career of note. I am off to Chicago for a neuroscience congress today. I shall try to edit it, but it has taken a long time so far ... he deserves better. Maybe I should get someone else to write it. I am obviously unqualified in teh Wikiworld. Cheers from Finland. ** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badspice (talk • contribs) 05:33, 16 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Help me please

Hi there,

I am new to Wikipedia and I need your help. I have glanced through your material but I am still not clear enough to start. I need to put a biography article for my client and I have a few questions.

A. In Sandbox, how can I change the article title, e.g. to make it “ABC”?

B. Will the world be able to google the article with keywords?

C. How long does it take for you guys to approve my article after I have saved it?

I will appreciate it.

Regards, Jimmy Jimmycheung8 (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Rather than answering your detail questions immediately, I will point you at some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, firstly on paid contributors and secondly on conflict of interest. After that, you need to be aware that not every person is entitled to a biography on Wikipedia. The notability standards specific to biographies are at Wikipedia:Notability (people). If you are confident that your subject meets the criteria, you should then look at WP:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jimmycheung8. In addition to the answers David Biddulph has given you, I shall attempt to answer your specific questions - but you might not like the answers:

Worry about the article title later, when you've got everything else sorted. To be specific, once you have requested a review (by inserting {{subst:submit}} in the article, when an editor accepts the article, they will move it to the right place, which is how the title gets set.
Googling things is the preserve of Google, and you'll have to ask them. Wikipedia has very little interest in whether you can google its articles.
It will take as long as it takes (after you submit it for review). Most Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and there is no deadline. --ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted article(?)

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It was posted about myself and the book I wrote and the wine that I created. What I used to do for living and what I do now. It was deleted because they said I was advertising a product. Which is my book and wine but that's part of my life what I do today for living Please help2607:FB90:7C4:DCD8:CECE:F774:9204:6F4E (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising medium. It contains articles which summarise what independent people have published about a subject. If people unconnected with you have published information about you or your book or your wine in reliable places, then we can have an article about you, which should not be written by you or contain any information that comes from you, but should be based entirely on what those independent people have published. If there is no such maaterial published, then there cannot, at present be an article about you, your book or your wine. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Animal Hero Kids

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello I am new to wikipedia and would like to create a page for the Animal Hero Kids Awards and the charity who created and continues to organize the annual awards Animal Hero Kids, how do I add a page to wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalherokids (talk • contribs) 12:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Animalherokids. If you want to write an article (not "add a page" - this is an encyclopaedia, which contains well-referenced and neutrally written articles), please start by reading Your first article and assembling the independent reliable sources which have published substantial material about the awards. If you can find such sources, then use the Article wizard to create your draft. If you cannot find any, then Wikipedia cannot have an article on the topic at present.

If you have a connection with the awards or the charity (as I suspect from your username) then you also need to read about WP:Conflict of interest, to understand why you are discouraged from writing about it.

Finally, usernames which suggest that an editor is working on behalf of an organisation are not allowed. Please either change your username (WP:CHU) or abandon it and create a new, personal, account. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Publishing a wiki article.

Hello

I am new user. I wish to publish an article. How to go about it?

I have already selected a topic and ensured that there are no articles which have already been published in that area.

Is there any way by which I can save the draft and publish my article later?

Venkateshburli (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome. Please create a draft following the process described at articles for creation.--ukexpat (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Prior to that, it's worth reading WP:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Feedback

Hey guys, feedback is appreciated! ;-) User:Kamengrossi/sandbox Kamengrossi (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Kamengrossi, The draft at User:Kamengrossi/sandbox looks pretty good, on a quick review. In fact, surprisingly good for a relatively new editor. One issue i noticed; when you make a direct quotation, please attribute it, that is, say who is speaking, in the text. I did this for one of the quotes you had in the draft, as an example. I haven't taken time to verify more than one or two of the many sources you cited, but if they all hold up this looks good. DES ^(talk) 12:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You should also read about how to make a lead section (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). Right now the text in the space that should be a lead section is more like a biography section. You could move that section down and create a new, shorter intro/lead. w.carter-Talk 12:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Kamengrossi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have given your draft a quick once-over, and while I also did not verify your sources, it seems you have done an impressive job researching the article, citing sources appropriately, and following Wikipedia formatting conventions! Nice work.

I have made a few edits to your draft to address some relatively minor formatting issues.

I disabled the categories because the draft is not yet an article in "mainspace". Once it is moved to Sonya Belousova, simply remove the colons before Category: to re-enable them.
I also alphabetized the category list, to make it easier for readers to find the category they are looking for.
It is generally not necessary to fill in the language= field in citations if the language is English (one exception would be if the title of the source is in another language). Also, the field should be filled in with the plaintext name of the language; "Russian", not "ru-RU". I changed all of the Russian ones for you, but if there are any other languages I missed, you should change those too.
The website= field should contain just the domain and extension (e.g. AnExample.com) without www. etc.; I also like to capitalize the first letter of each word in a domain name to make it easier for readers to parse.
Bare URLs should not go in the publisher= field, whic is intended for proper names such as McGraw-Hill or Clear Channel.
On Wikipedia it's best to use straight quotation marks " " rather than typographic quotation marks (also called curly quotes) “ ”, because the latter interfere with some users' search results. I changed all the double quotation marks to " " for you, but there may still be some single quotes and apostrophes that need to be changed to '.
When using <blockquote>, it's not necessary to also use quotation marks.
ALL CAPS in titles can usually be changed to Title Case or Sentence case as appropriate; I fixed most if not all instances for you.
One issue I didn't address in my edits is the format "St-Petersburg". The Wikipedia article on the city uses the style "Saint Petersburg"; I think "St. Petersburg" would be an acceptable format also, but "St-Petersburg" looks wrong to my eye.

Congratulations on what's shaping up to be an excellent first Wikipedia article! —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 12:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if the web site has a name that should be used rather than the domain. For example the film review site should be cited with |website=Rotten Tomatoes, not |website =rottentomatoes.com. If the site has an article on wikipedia, that can be linked, as |website=Rotten Tomatoes. The shorter parameter |work= can be used instead of |website=. @Kamengrossi and GrammarFascist: DES ^(talk) 12:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I've done some wikignoming on the formatting too, but great work. It's definitely ready to be moved to mainspace.--ukexpat (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow!! You guys are the best!! Thanks everyone for their input, time and detailed comments!!! This is awesome!! ;-) Will review the article according to everyone's suggestions and post it. Thanks again! Kamengrossi (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Artical for deletion

Looking for some help to tag an article for deletion - I've been to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page but still can not get the Creating an AFD selection to work - (note there has been a purposed note applied) regards FOX 52 (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. At Creating an AFD, the white box says "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/<ARTICLENAME>". In there change the "<ARTICLENAME>" to the name of the article for deletion, so that it now reads "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MH-60CZ Multi-Role Helicopter". At that stage, hit the button labelled "Nominate this article for deletion". That gives you a creation template. Where it says "text=Reason", change the "Reason" to your justification for deletion, preview, check, then save. This will create the AFD subpage for you, and you can add further content if necesaary. Then go to the article, edit it, and add {{subst:afd}} at the top, preview, check, and save. Then click on the "the current AFD log page" link at Creating an AFD, which will then take you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 15, or the corresponding page for the day you do it, and there add {{subst:afd3|pg=MH-60CZ Multi-Role Helicopter}} to the top of the list, again preview, check, & save. Then you can notify the original creator of the page by adding {{subst:adw|MH-60CZ Multi-Role Helicopter}} to their user talk page, and yet again preview, check, and save. Hopefully that will do the trick. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Awesome a million thanks FOX 52 (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution

Hi. I am currently in an argument with someone that does not seem to be coming to a close. I have looked at some different pages, but it is still continuing. Are there any more resources that I can use or anyone on wikipedia that can help? RES2773 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I find your question rather vague to be able to answer well. Is this dispute about content in some way, such as notability or accuracy, or about conduct? If you don't wish to provide more information here, then Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests might be a good place to start, and if all else fails there is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk page "not patrolled"

I made the first entry to Category talk:Wikipedia public watchlists then noticed it in my watchlist as N!, or not patrolled. Does this mean it is unlikely to get the attention of an editor that can do something about it? Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Arbalest Mike If you have pop-ups enabled, and you had hovered over the N! a pop up would have said "This edit created a new page" - AFAIK, this is nothing to do with being "patrolled", which usually refers to Wikipedia:New pages patrol which only normally covers articles, not talk pages. As you have now edited that page again, that edit will not appear with a N! on your watchlist.
As for whether anyone would find your post, that is very unlikely on an extremely obscure category talk-page.
Categories are ordered alphabetically unless that is over-written by default sort codes. As that category only has 6 entries I don't think we need to worry about the order too much. I was more surprised that they did not all start with W - I don't think User:Newbiepedian/wip/SCN-Watchlist should be in that category, but as that page has not been edited for 5½ years, and that User has not edited Wikipedia in over 2 years, I will remove it and leave them a note. - Arjayay (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have just discovered that User:Newbiepedian/wip/SCN-Watchlist was just a transclusion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/publicwatchlist so I have "nowikied" it, and it has disappeared from the category, which now has 5 entries - Arjayay (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand the "N" is for New, but it is actually the "!" that I referred to in "N!". The legend on my watchlist page says that means unpatrolled. In any case the alphabetizing is the issue I wanted to point out ultimately. For what it's worth I momentarily put a link tag to the page on my own user page and then my user page showed up on that public watchlist page. That is not what I wanted or expected so I removed it from my user page. But if that is the intended mechanism for use then that list of watchlists could start growing quickly even if one user starts dropping the tag around. Arbalest Mike (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The term "patrolled" (as in, the page you created being listed as "not patrolled") does not mean that it is "it is unlikely to get the attention of" other editors, Arbalest Mike... though it might not get much attention for other reasons. Rather, as explained in Wikipedia:New pages patrol, it means that the page has not yet been patrolled — in other words, no editor independent of the page's creator has yet marked it as having been checked for acceptability. Many editors seek out newly-created pages so that they can evaluate them and either simply mark them as patrolled, or mark what changes need to be made to them, as appropriate. I hope this clarifies things for you. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 20:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Arbalest Mike might be confusing "patrolled" and "watched". These are very different things (other than that brand new pages won't have yet been patrolled, and won't be on many watchlists). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all who replied. I am satisfied that the notation doesn't mean that the page will not be looked at. I will take it that it just means the new page has not been checked by another editor. However, the legend on my watchlist says that "!" means "This new page is not patrolled" (rather than "has not yet been..."). Otherwise, case-closed. Thanks again. Arbalest Mike (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"This new page has not been patrolled" would probably be best, but I don't know whether anyone here has control over this wording or if it's built into the software and would require a change to that (I presume the latter). Cordless Larry (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Rice Lake Township of St. Louis County, Minnesota is now the city of Rice Lake, an incorporated city as of August 2015

I am contacting Wikipedia regarding the Wikipedia article: Rice Lake Township, St. Louis County, Minnesota

I hope I am contacting the correct email address to request a change to the page name for this Wikipedia article.

The former Rice Lake Township incorporated as the city of Rice Lake on August 20, 2015.

In an order dated August 20, Minnesota Administrative Law Judge Barbara Case ruled that the township "has established the relevant factors by a preponderance of the evidence, and therefore Rice Lake Township's petition for incorporation is granted."

The incorporation effort began in June 2014.

On October 13, 2015, residents of Rice Lake turned out to elect their first city mayor, and their city councilors.

The first city council meeting of Rice Lake will be October 22.

The name of the Wikipedia article page for the former township should be changed to simply "Rice Lake, Minnesota". It still hasn't been changed on the Wikipedia website.

There is currently another Wikipedia article with the page name "Rice Lake, Minnesota", but that is a Census-designated place in Clearwater County of Minnesota. That Wikipedia page name also needs to be changed to : "Rice Lake (CDP), Minnesota" in order to disambiguate between the two different pages, to reflect the legal changes that have recently happened as a result of the incorporation of Minnesota's newest city.

I hope I am contacting the correct Wikipedia email address regarding the name changes that need to be made to these 2 Wikipedia articles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb43 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Caleb43, and welcome to the Teahouse. In theory the best place to post about this would be Talk:Rice Lake Township, St. Louis County, Minnesota, but somehow I suspect that is not a much visited talk page. The key thing is that we need reliable sources for this change, and preferably not a court document. Newspaper stories covering the change would be ideal. Can you provide links or citations to any? DES ^(talk) 23:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability/Secondary Sources

Hi there,

I have been working on Draft:Bob Hardwick, an article about a big band leader who's been in the business for 40 years. I've gone through three edits and the most recent was denied due to a question of notability. I referenced magazine articles on Bob Hardwick including People and Fortune in addition to university articles, but the reviewer believes the sources do not validate notability. What can I do to resolve this? What other secondary sources could validate notability?

Another band leader Peter Duchin has an article published already with only one source used. What determines the amount of sources needed to prove credibility?

Thank you.96.224.4.107 (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user at 96.224.4.107, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have not yet looked at your draft, or the other article you referenced. However, I would like to point out that, if indeed the Peter Duchin article lacks sufficient sources to establish his notability, that has no bearing on the draft article you created. Wikipedia has nearly 5 million articles and only several thousand active volunteer editors, so there are articles here and there that are not up to the standards all Wikipedia articles are expected to meet. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 18:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. One big difference in the two articles is the quality of the references. People magazine is not the same as San Francisco Chronicle or New York Times. I have to admit that I am having a hard time finding any references that I feel meet the notability requirements WP:BAND. You could perhaps make more of the Fortune ref which does at least indicate he has been successful and popular, but this is from a business perspective, and what you really need is a solid critique from a respected and more relevant source with an emphasis on music. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Another thing to keep in mind is that the notability of a topic does not depend on the sources already in the article, but rather on the full range and quality of published sources which are available. GrammarFascist has already added several new sources to Peter Duchin, who has had a notable career going back over half a century. In less than a minute, I found a detailed entry in a book called The Big Band Almanac. Where are the similar sources about Bob Hardwick? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

some dudes face

<question>WTF theres a random face popping up on the left</question> — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperCofee (talk • contribs)

Hi SuperCofee, welcome to the Teahouse. Please post a link to a page where you see this. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello SuperCofee, I think you have come across a user page that has a "prank feature" installed. There are ways of displaying something unusual or unexpected in the left column on a user page. One of these features is the face of Jimmy Wales, founder of the Wikipedia, popping up at random. (It is a version of This file

) Right now I can't remember the code for this or which editors use this. Another of these features, a running horse, can be seen on this page. w.carter-Talk 08:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you,that explains everything.

  ^
  | conversacional wikispeak SuperCofee (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Where is the definition for <source lang="console">

someone recntry changed the examples on a page ( umask ) from lang="bash" to lang="console"

This caused the text to occur in a box with a light gray background (as per the div class="mw-highlight" ...)

It also seems to have rendered comments ( starting with a hash '#') in a green color; font-style:italic (or oblique) and the output from the command is in gray ( as per class="go" the text of the command the page is about (umask) is in a different green class="nb"

This is very difficult to read. Someone has gone to a lot of work to implement the lang=console.

I don't have a problem with the change from bash to console, bout the definition of console should be easier to read.

Can I change the definition? Can I contact the person who implement lang=console? DGerman (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again DGerman, it occurred to me that I could answer your question while I was at it. Since this does not constitutes as vandalism of the article, simply changing the definition is not a good idea since that could result in an edit war which is never good. The best way to deal with this is to discuss it with Cedar101 who made the changes and see if you two can come up with a good solution for it all. I agree that the text is a bit hard to read, and even if these may be the colors that appear when looking at such a source code, things should be easy to read for everyone here at the Wikipedia. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

For more info about what colors to choose please see WP:COLOR. w.carter-Talk 19:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

In my system, <source lang="console"> is not hard to read. -- Cedar101 (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The definition for <source lang="console"> is in https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi/blob/master/SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi.lexers.php#L99 and https://bitbucket.org/birkenfeld/pygments-main/src/08e6e3c38153f26dae87867d873bc02fd6344c36/pygments/lexers/shell.py?at=default&fileviewer=file-view-default#shell.py-179.

The "console" attribute highlights the source for keyboard inputs(like HTML5 semantic markup (<kbd>...</kbd>) and sample outputs (<samp>...</samp>). -- Cedar101 (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Starting a page

How do I go about starting a page?? LumpAskew (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The guidance at Wikipedia:Your_first_article may be useful to you. --LukeSurl^{t c} 08:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of my first article

Hi I just created my first article. What do you think? Any suggestions?

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

Cheers

InovaThor (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@InovaThor: I think it's a solid start. Your next step should be to provide some inline citations so that readers know where, specifically, each bit of information from the text came from. --Jayron 32 01:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. I'll do that! InovaThor (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32 I noticed that you got a lot of awards on your profile. How does the award system work? InovaThor (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no "system" per-se. People just give them to you because they want to recognize you for work you've done. See Wikipedia:Awards. TBH, I've stopped updating my user page probably a few years ago. I haven't even looked at it in a year or more. I'd half forgotten about that. --Jayron 32 10:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Jayron

Thanks for explaining. Cheers!

InovaThor (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

cleanup templates for article:American Society of International Law

Hi, I just placed on the Wikipedia article: American Society of International Law tags for COI, RESUME, and PRIMARY SOURCE. The subject of the article seems to be worthy of an article, but it reads like it was written for its own website. So, I decided to go the extra mile, and looked at the history of contributions. The main contributors seems to be the Society itself (static URL 206.205.78.99 - see 'whois'), another user seems to have existed only for editing that particular article (Erintern3). Have I done everything I should in pointing out the situation? Should I contact the contributors? Since the main source is a static IP which doesn't seem to have an account, what is to be done in that case? —Boruch Baum (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The main problems I see there is the lack of secondary references and all the links to their website; Under External links all that is needed is one link to their homepage and maybe one to the other domain, eisil.org; Under Online resources, get rid of the external links and edit it down to one paragraph that describes the resources that can be found on their websites, but do not link to them. There is probably not much to be done about past contributors if they aren't active right now, apart from tidy up after them, and watch the page for further edits from them. If you wanted to further improve the article you could maybe add an appropriate infobox template (probably Template:Infobox organization is most appropriate, and add the talk page to other WikiProjects, maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject International law and Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations. The best way of dealing with single user edits is to get more experienced eyes onto the article. Some reorganization would also be merited; under Current Operations they talk about publications, which have a section of their own so that is not necessary; the See Also section mentions a lecture series that they sponsor, so that could easily move into Current Operations. Let us know if you need assistance with any of this. Derek Andrews (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Derek Andrews: Thanks, and Done.

Resubmitting an article

I had an article declined last month and tried to resubmit it, but apparently it didn't go through somehow. Can you provide step by step instructions and tips for resubmitting an article? I'm trying to figure out where I went wrong.ProWriterWV (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ProWriterWV, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft Draft:Chip Graves is currently not submitted. If you have addressed the issues the person who declined the previous submission listed, and you believe the article now complies with other relevant Wikipedia policies, then just click the big blue Submit button inside the pink box at the top of the article. Then follow the on-screen instructions carefully. If you want to re-submit the article and are having technical difficulties with the submission process, I will happily submit the article on your behalf; just ask. But please don't resubmit if you have not corrected the problems pointed out. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 16:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you look at your contribution record, you will see that your only edits have been the original submission of Draft:Chip Graves and then this question here. Draft:Chip Graves has seen no edits since the submission was declined. The step by step instructions are first to read the feedback in the pink box at the top of the draft (and in the message on your user talk page), and in the comment immediately below that box on the draft. The words or phrases in blue are wikilinks to specific help, so you need to click those l;inks and read the pages to which you have been pointed. In particular you need to read WP:Referencing for beginners and WP:Inline citation. When you have read and understood the feedback you can edit the draft, check it with the "Show preview" button, then "Save" it if you are happy, after which you can resubmit with the "Resubmit" button in the pink box. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at Draft:Chip Graves, ProWriterWV. I am confident that it would not be accepted if submitted in its current state. It does not currently have any inline citations. (See Referencing for Beginners and Help:Footnotes for information on how to format inline citations, or ask for specific help here.) Phrases such as "Combining Scripture and business acumen he acquired early in his career, his parish is growing in faith and numbers, while better meeting the needs of the community.", " Graves is the kind who's likely to be seen out in the community, or right in his parking lot or fellowship hall, amidst those who aren't necessarily expected in the pews on Sunday morning. ", "In the years to follow, his heart led him to ministry. He felt a calling to utilize his previous academic and business experience to help, support and motivate others to connect with the Holy Spirit through Christ.", and "The synergy created gives ministries more attention and traction, ultimately making programs more effective." are opinions and evaluations and should not be present unless attributed to a cited source. See WP:SOAP. There are other issues as well. DES ^(talk) 18:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Helpful! Thank you. What's the best way to practice or create a draft and make sure I have all the coding down and everything before I resubmit it for good?ProWriterWV (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Wecome back to the Teahouse, ProWriterWV. The draft you already have is a perfectly good place to practice, or you could also use your user sandbox. Every revision you save is kept in the article's history, so you don't have to worry about losing anything. You also have a theoretically unlimited number of chances to re-submit your article for AfC review, so it's okay if you don't get it perfect the first, second or third time — though it is a good idea to always do your best before submitting. If you have any further questions about following the instructions in the links David Biddulph and DES provided above, feel free to ask. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 15:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Self - published book needing to create own wiki page

Hi, I am trying to create my own page for my debut novel, Dweezlehumbard and the Curious Adventures of the Straw People. Because it is a self published work adding citations from a external source is a little tricky. Could you advise me as what to do. It is copyrighted under my own name. It is available for sale on Amazon kindle, if that helps. And I also have a behance site for the art work associated with the book, and a facebook account in honour of the book.

Kind regards G.A. May 86.12.191.4 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a free advertising platform to promote your work. All articles on Wikipedia must meet the requirements that reliable third party sources have already found the subject worthy of discussion. And even if others have noted your self published work, as someone with a conflict of interest it will be difficult for you to present content in an appropriately neutral point of view reflecting how the third party mainstream sources see the work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

To give you some idea of what is required, reliable third party sources might include reviews of your book or features about it in magazines or newspapers. That's something that is rare with self-published books though, I sense. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia does not aim to have an article about every book (self- or conventionally published). Complimenting the general guidance discussed above, there is some specific guidance to help Wikipedia editors to decide whether a book is notable: Wikipedia:Notability (books). "Notable" in Wikipedia-speak means that Wikipedia should have an article about it. Please note that an assessment, yay or nay, of "notability" is not a judgement of a book's quality or merit. --LukeSurl^{t c} 15:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

And see also the notability guidelines for books.--ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP (who I presume is Grant. A. May), has indicated that he will wait for third-party sources to become available. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Problem with Template:Featured list

I just moved List of Naruto manga volumes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to List of Naruto volumes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), since the "manga" was redundant. For some reason, however, this made the {{featured list}} icon expand to take up a large portion of the page. Could someone take a look and see what I did wrong, because frankly, I'm stumped. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

A bit bizarre. If no one comes along I suggest a post to WP:VPT. I tried a bunch of things, purging the page, purging the template, a null edit, a dummy edit, seeing if {{DISPLAYTITLE}} had an affect, if other articles using it have the same issue and seeing if the template had any vandalism or any discussion of the issue on its talk page. I updated the name you moved it to at WP:FL.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that is big. I have no idea what's happening, but would be interested to hear how this is resolved. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is currently in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded so some templates are not expanded. At the end it displays the link Template:Featured list to indicate a missing template expansion. I would have have expected no icon at all. It appears the template is partially expanding to include File:Cscr-featured.svg but without the size so it displays at full size. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I suspect what may need to be done is someone will have to put <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags around the |chapterlist= and |shortsummary= parameters of the {{graphic novel list}}s on the various subpages to reduce the amount of content being transcluded onto the page. I had to do a similar thing at List of Fairy Tail volumes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) when the subpages got too big to transclude, and I have a suspicion that if someone were to do that, it might fix this problem. Tedious work, but if anyone has time, that would be great: I won't be able to until sometime tomorrow since it's getting late. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on another method to greatly reduce the post-expand include size without omitting any content so don't do this yet. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone more familiar with the subject also needs to fix the interlanguage links - List of Naruto volumes currently has a non-standard link to fr:Liste des chapitres de Naruto. I think that link should be listed at d:Q1062669 but there is conflicting listing with another Wikidata record.--ukexpat (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed the transclusion problem. List of Naruto volumes transcludes List of Naruto chapters (Part I), List of Naruto chapters (Part II, volumes 28–48) and List of Naruto chapters (Part II, volumes 49–72). Previously only the first of these three lists was actually expanded. The next two (and the following templates like {{Featured list}}) failed because the post-expand include size limit of 2 MB was broken. Replacing {{Numbered list}} by list syntax like [1] in the three lists meant that the second list could also be expanded. Replacing most of the around 700 {{nihongo}} by the simpler {{nihongo-s}} like [2] meant that everything now expands properly, and only 1.3 MB of the allowed 2 MB is used so the three list articles have room to grow. The only visible difference is that there are now much less than 700 occurrences of "^?". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: congratulations on fixing it: I'm not sure that I would have the patience to do all that you did, and I'm willing to do some pretty tedious stuff. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The hard part was figuring out what to do without losing content or making the pages difficult to edit. The diffs are long but the edits were made with regular expressions or search-and-replace. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

owning this site

i met somone here the other day who wanted me gone says he owns this site very confused is he right or is he wrong???? Kaiwen0115 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kaiwen0115 and welcome to the Teahouse. No one person owns the site. Who was this and on what page did s/he write this? DES ^(talk) 00:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything of the sort on any of the pages where you have posted. DES ^(talk) 00:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

dont khow he got rid of it how doi find it Kaiwen0115 (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

of he does it again ill show you ill copy it and put it here Kaiwen0115 (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kaiwen0115. Is it possible you were logged out at the time and saw this on the talk page of the IP address that might have been shown for you when you edited while logged out? Can you tell us whether you remember what page you were editing when you saw this message? It might just help if you stated the surrounding circumstances. What do you mean you met someone? Did you see a message that was directed somehow at you? If so, how was it targeted to you? Did it have anything to do with the deletion of Mobbin chat?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this happened before you created your account, or when you weren't logged in. But to answer your question, no one owns an article, and we thrive on consensus. Derek Andrews (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Back to the original question. Wikipedia is operated by the Wikimedia Foundation headquartered in San Francisco, and in some sense, I suppose that you could say that WMF "owns" this website. However, the content here on Wikipedia (not including quotes and images from copyrighted sources used in a limited way) is freely licensed or copyright free, and therefore belongs to no one. Or, in another sense, it belongs to all of humanity to use freely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

More exactly the content belongs to the various individual contributors, each having a copyright on his or her contribution. But those contents are (with a few exceptions) all freely licensed, so that anyone may reproduce and reuse them, provided that the terms of the license (which largely have to do with attributing the original source, and granting the same rights to others) are complied with. DES ^(talk) 00:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

On Photographs in articles

I am a fresher here. Could I be guided as to how to revert photos removed from page 'Kanhaiya Lal Misra' which I had submitted under Creative Commons and are my property but have been removed Munindramisra (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the page history, the image was deleted from Commons was deleted because you did not supply the license or source information for the photo. If you're sure it was entirely your own work, you can try reuploading it using the Upload Wizard which makes it easier to get everything filled in correctly. Then, if someone nominates the file for deletion again, be sure to respond to the nomination, and you will receive instructions for correcting any remaining problems. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

But note that even if you license the images properly, that doesnt mean that they will be used if the community consensus is that no images or other images work better. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

14 October 2015

I tried to reload the same but was informed the photos already exist - still at sea and do not know what to do . . . Munindramisra (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Munindramisra. If the images are showing as already present on Commons, then you do not need to reupload them. Just click the "Use this file" next to the W for Wikipedia icon at the top of the page and you can add it back to the article. Note, however, that if it is not considered appropriately placed in the article by other editors, it may be removed. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you User:GrammarFascist

User:GrammarFascist

I wanted to personally thank you for the hard work and time you dedicated into helping me with Gabriele Corcos's page. I greatly appreciate it :)

Thetuscangun (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Thetuscangun. For future reference, user talk pages are a more appropriate place for public thanks (the Teahouse is intended as a place for learning about editing Wikipedia) but the sentiment is still appreciated.

—GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 03:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Article about a free setup creator

Hello, one year ago I came across a free setup creator called InstallForge (just google for it). When you google for "free setup creator" you will find it on the 1. place and indeed it is a really cool freeware for software developers. Since InstallSimple has its own article which is by far not as popular as InstallForge I thought about creating a new article for InstallForge.

Do you think that its notable here on Wikipedia?

77.21.231.84 (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! At Wikipedia, "notability" has a special meaning. In its simplest form: that reliably published sources, not related to the subject, have found the subject worthy of covering in a significant manner.

So, have major newspapers, respected trade publications (not press release regurgitation systems), standard publishing books, academic journals, etc. found it worth covering?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

How do you create an infobox?

Hi, I'm Spike789. I have been wondering about how to create an infobox. I know you have to locate it, but I still don't understand. Can somebody tell me how? Spike789 ^Talk 23:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Spike789, welcome to the Teahouse. If by "create an infobox" you mean "add an infobox to an article", first you need to pick the appropriate infobox template (this is perhaps what you mean by "locate it"?) such as Template:Infobox organization or Template:Infobox food. Then you copy everything from "{{Infobox" to the first set of "}}" after it, and paste that into the top of the article, above " '''Example''' is a thing" but below anything else with {{curly brackets}} around it, such as hatnotes or cleanup templates. And then you just fill in the fields in the template you pasted in, leaving blank any that don't apply. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Spike789. The problem you were having with the infobox in Wroteshaw was that you did not include an ending set of curly braces( "}}" ). And what made it very easily confusing is that you did have what might have appeared to be an ending set, but they were the ending for {{flatlist|, so you needed a second pair to end the infobox. That's the technical issue. There's a fundamental issue though with the topic of the article itself.

After looking, this appears to be an article on a non-notable topic, and with its current text, one that is subject to speedy deletion under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion as making no credible claim of importance or significance for the topic. As an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, Wikipedia only properly has articles on topics that the world has taken note of by publishing substantive content about them in reliable, secondary sources that are entirely unconnected to the topic. Do any sources like that exist? By the way, is this person you or someone you know? If so, please read Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested as to why you feel that {{infobox connector}} is appropriate for an attempt at an article about a person? - David Biddulph (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Cant locate badgeometer

I am trying to see all the badges I earned and I cannot find out where they are. Can you please help me? Kcolosimo975 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

They are on your user page here User:Kcolosimo975 Theroadislong (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

And by clicking on the History tab, [3] you will always be able to view them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

How to nominate an article for deletion

I have come across a self-promoting article about an artist, who is not notable and probably qualifies under G11, one of Wiki's editors replied to me. The article is very lengthy, relies on almost entirely on two interviews with the artist (name of article, Anthony Conway), and has links to everyone from Andy Warhol (on who Mr. Conway waited on in a restaurant) to Prince William.

I mostly object to the artist linking himself to important art movements like Classical Realism on Wikipedia, and showing up in a list in that article along with truly notable artists who deserve to be named.

I am new to Wikipedia, and would like to know what is the correct procedure to Nominate for Deletion. Can someone with more knowledge put in the tag? I'm not clear on how to do it, but if I understand it, you just add the code in the HTML box? and hit return? Then the discussion starts? As a new editor, is another option to simply delete the passages that are not valid or sourced properly? Thank you! Seeker1111 (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Seeker1111 (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Seeker1111. Another editor has nominated the article for deletion, and you can join the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Conway. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)